# Official Journal C 253/4 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 253 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 574 August 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 253

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 574 August 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 253/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 253/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 253/02 | Case C-547/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Decisions 2006/323/EC and 2007/375/EC — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia — Recovery — Decisions to suspend the enforcement of a demand for payment taken by a national court) | 2 |
| 2014/C 253/03 | Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State — Scope of EU law — Special European Union-OCTs arrangements) | 3 |
| 2014/C 253/04 | Case C-35/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Single and continuous infringement) | 3 |
| 2014/C 253/05 | Case C-36/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary — Obligation to state reasons) | 4 |
| 2014/C 253/06 | Case C-198/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal market in energy — Gas transmission — Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 — Articles 14(1) and 16(1) and (2)(b) — Obligation to guarantee maximum capacity — Virtual reverse flow gas capacity — Admissibility) | 5 |
| 2014/C 253/07 | Case C-356/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern (Request for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Directive 2006/126/EC — Point 6.4 of Annex III — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 20, 21(1) and 26 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Driving licences — Physical and mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle — Minimum standards — Visual acuity — Equal treatment — No possibility of derogation — Proportionality) | 5 |
| 2014/C 253/08 | Case C-360/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 — Community trade mark — Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — International jurisdiction relating to infringement — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred — Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act) | 6 |
| 2014/C 253/09 | Case C-398/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence — Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light — Concept of person whose trial has been finally disposed of — Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts — Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle) | 7 |
| 2014/C 253/10 | Case C-539/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Leicester — United Kingdom) — Z.J.R. Lock v British Gas Trading Limited (Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Composition of remuneration — Basic salary and commission according to turnover realised) | 8 |
| 2014/C 253/11 | Case C-557/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (Article 101 TFEU — Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party (Umbrella pricing) — Causal link) | 9 |
| 2014/C 253/12 | Case C-56/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal (Directives 92/40/EEC and 2005/94/EC — Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16, 17 and 47 — Measures for the control of avian influenza — Compensation for damage) | 9 |
| 2014/C 253/13 | Case C-105/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 34, 36 and 137 — Payment entitlements — Basis of calculation — Premiums paid in respect of cattle and land held by the farmer during the reference period — Modification of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels — Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid — Application by the farmer for a reduction in the number and an increase in the unit value of his payment entitlements — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 73a(2a) — Lawfulness) | 10 |
| 2014/C 253/14 | Case C-255/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — I v Health Service Executive (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 11 — National of a Member State insured in his State of residence — Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State — Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives — Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State — Definition of residence and stay) | 11 |
| 2014/C 253/15 | Case C-339/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/74/EC — Articles 3 and 5(2) — Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems — Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive) | 12 |
| 2014/C 253/16 | Case C-360/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others (Copyright — Information Society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(1) and (5) — Reproduction — Exceptions and limitations — Creation of copies of an internet site on-screen and in the cache of the hard disk in the course of browsing the internet — Temporary act of reproduction — Transient or incidental act — Integral and essential part of a technological process — Lawful use — Independent economic significance) | 13 |
| 2014/C 253/17 | Case C-129/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 50 and 52 — Ne bis in idem principle — Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Penalty which has been enforced or which is actually in the process of being enforced) | 13 |
| 2014/C 253/18 | Case C-146/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi (Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 15 — Detention — Extension of detention — Obligations of the administrative or judicial authority — Review by a judicial authority — Third-country national without identity documents — Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision — Refusal of the embassy of the third country concerned to issue an identity document enabling the third-country national to be returned — Risk of absconding — Reasonable prospect of removal — Lack of cooperation — Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned) | 14 |
| 2014/C 253/19 | Case C-520/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013 — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku | 15 |
| 2014/C 253/20 | Case C-177/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 April 2014 — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado | 16 |
| 2014/C 253/21 | Case C-183/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2014 — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj | 16 |
| 2014/C 253/22 | Case C-216/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci | 17 |
| 2014/C 253/23 | Case C-244/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 18 |
| 2014/C 253/24 | Case C-250/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 26 May 2014 — Air France — KLM v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics | 18 |
| 2014/C 253/25 | Case C-254/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 26 May 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika | 19 |
| 2014/C 253/26 | Case C-265/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2014 by Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-292/11 Cemex and Others v Commission | 19 |
| 2014/C 253/27 | Case C-272/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S | 21 |
| 2014/C 253/28 | Case C-286/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission | 21 |
| 2014/C 253/29 | Case C-296/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission | 22 |
| 2014/C 253/30 | Case C-592/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda) | 22 |
| 2014/C 253/31 | Joined Cases C-215/13 P and C-216/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 31 March 2014 — Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe | 22 |
| 2014/C 253/32 | Case C-283/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014 — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission, Denmark | 23 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 253/33 | Case T-595/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark VINO DI RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons) | 24 |
| 2014/C 253/34 | Case T-260/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Spain v Commission (Fisheries — Conservation of fishery resources — Spain exceeding mackerel fishing quotas in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 for 2010 — Deductions from fishing quotas for 2011 to 2015 — Rights of the defense — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment) | 24 |
| 2014/C 253/35 | Case T-273/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2014/C 253/36 | Case T-330/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Hut.com v OHIM — Intersport France (THE HUT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark THE HUT — Earlier national word mark LA HUTTE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2014/C 253/37 | Case T-382/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2014 — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Nobel — Earlier national word mark NOBEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2014/C 253/38 | Case T-523/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Sani — Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2014/C 253/39 | Case T-207/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2014/C 253/40 | Case T-305/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Unicid v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate) | 28 |
| 2014/C 253/41 | Case T-526/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Axa Versicherung v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 29 |
| 2014/C 253/42 | Case T-239/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application — No need to adjudicate) | 29 |
| 2014/C 253/43 | Case T-427/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.) (Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gruppo Norton S.r.l. — Earlier national figurative mark NORTON HISPAŃO — Rule 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 30 |
| 2014/C 253/44 | Case T-252/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS) | 30 |
| 2014/C 253/45 | Case T-253/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS) | 31 |
| 2014/C 253/46 | Case T-256/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Giuntoli/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA) | 32 |
| 2014/C 253/47 | Case T-269/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX) | 32 |
| 2014/C 253/48 | Case T-273/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX) | 33 |
| 2014/C 253/49 | Case T-278/14: Action brought on 27 April 2014 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (Belt) | 34 |
| 2014/C 253/50 | Case T-335/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS) | 35 |
| 2014/C 253/51 | Case T-339/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Kurchenko v Council | 36 |
| 2014/C 253/52 | Case T-346/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council | 37 |
| 2014/C 253/53 | Case T-347/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council | 39 |
| 2014/C 253/54 | Case T-348/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council | 40 |
| 2014/C 253/55 | Case T-354/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex) | 41 |
| 2014/C 253/56 | Case T-356/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot) | 42 |
| 2014/C 253/57 | Case T-357/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Experience Hendrix v OHIM — JH Licence (Jimi Hendrix) | 43 |
| 2014/C 253/58 | Case T-358/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA) | 44 |
| 2014/C 253/59 | Case T-359/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Accelerate (COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE) | 44 |
| 2014/C 253/60 | Case T-360/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS) | 45 |
| 2014/C 253/61 | Case T-363/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Secolux v Commission | 46 |
| 2014/C 253/62 | Case T-365/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE) | 47 |
| 2014/C 253/63 | Case T-366/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good) | 48 |
| 2014/C 253/64 | Case T-369/14: Action brought on 29 May 2014 — Sequoia Capital Operations v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL) | 49 |
| 2014/C 253/65 | Case T-385/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE) | 49 |
| 2014/C 253/66 | Case T-386/14: Action brought on 24 May 2014 — Fih Holding and Fih Erhversbank v Commission | 50 |
| 2014/C 253/67 | Case T-401/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Duro Felguera v Commission | 51 |
| 2014/C 253/68 | Case T-406/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Promoinmo v Commission | 52 |
| 2014/C 253/69 | Case T-407/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Gres La Sagra v Commission | 53 |
| 2014/C 253/70 | Case T-408/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Venatto Design v Commission | 53 |
| 2014/C 253/71 | Case T-415/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Embutidos Rodríguez v Commission | 54 |
| 2014/C 253/72 | Case T-416/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission | 55 |
| 2014/C 253/73 | Case T-417/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Afar 4 v Commission | 55 |
| 2014/C 253/74 | Case T-426/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos v Commission | 56 |
| 2014/C 253/75 | Case T-427/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Almoauto v Commission | 56 |
| 2014/C 253/76 | Case T-428/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Gasiber 2000 v Commission | 57 |
| 2014/C 253/77 | Case T-429/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Uriinmuebles v Commission | 57 |
| 2014/C 253/78 | Case T-432/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission | 58 |
| 2014/C 253/79 | Case T-433/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Superficies de Alimentación v Commission | 58 |
| 2014/C 253/80 | Case T-435/14: Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council | 59 |
| 2014/C 253/81 | Case T-436/14: Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Neka Novin v Council | 60 |
| 2014/C 253/82 | Case T-442/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission | 60 |
| 2014/C 253/83 | Case T-443/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG v Commission | 61 |
| 2014/C 253/84 | Case T-452/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission | 62 |
| 2014/C 253/85 | Case T-461/14: Action brought on 20 June 2014 — Arocasa v Commission | 63 |
| 2014/C 253/86 | Case T-465/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Vego Supermercados v Commission | 63 |
| 2014/C 253/87 | Case T-467/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission | 64 |
| 2014/C 253/88 | Case T-469/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Dordal v Commission | 64 |
| 2014/C 253/89 | Case T-479/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Kendrion v Court of Justice of the European Union | 65 |
| 2014/C 253/90 | Cases T-433/11 and T-98/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Makhlouf v Council | 66 |
| 2014/C 253/91 | Case T-109/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Othman v Council | 66 |
| 2014/C 253/92 | Case T-477/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council | 66 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 253/93 | Case F-24/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — BN v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Action for annulment — Official of grade AD 14 occupying a post as Head of Unit — Allegation of psychological harassment against the Director-General — Mobility exercise — Refusal to accept appointment to a post of Advisor in another Directorate-General with the loss of the salary increase for Heads of Unit — Decision on a temporary transfer to another Advisor post — Interest of the service — Principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade — Action for compensation — Harm arising from non-decision-making conduct) | 67 |
| 2014/C 253/94 | Case F-119/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff) | 67 |
| 2014/C 253/95 | Case F-120/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Coutureau v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed–term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff) | 68 |
| 2014/C 253/96 | Case F-121/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Maynard v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff) | 69 |
| 2014/C 253/97 | Case F-66/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Molina Solano v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff) | 69 |
| 2014/C 253/98 | Case F-67/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Rihn v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff) | 70 |
| 2014/C 253/99 | Case F-56/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission | 70 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 253/02

Case C-547/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Decisions 2006/323/EC and 2007/375/EC — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia — Recovery — Decisions to suspend the enforcement of a demand for payment taken by a national court)

2

2014/C 253/03

Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State — Scope of EU law — Special European Union-OCTs arrangements)

3

2014/C 253/04

Case C-35/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Single and continuous infringement)

3

2014/C 253/05

Case C-36/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary — Obligation to state reasons)

4

2014/C 253/06

Case C-198/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal market in energy — Gas transmission — Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 — Articles 14(1) and 16(1) and (2)(b) — Obligation to guarantee maximum capacity — Virtual reverse flow gas capacity — Admissibility)

5

2014/C 253/07

Case C-356/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern (Request for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Directive 2006/126/EC — Point 6.4 of Annex III — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 20, 21(1) and 26 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Driving licences — Physical and mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle — Minimum standards — Visual acuity — Equal treatment — No possibility of derogation — Proportionality)

5

2014/C 253/08

Case C-360/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 — Community trade mark — Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — International jurisdiction relating to infringement — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred — Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act)

6

2014/C 253/09

Case C-398/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence — Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light — Concept of person whose trial has been finally disposed of — Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts — Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle)

7

2014/C 253/10

Case C-539/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Leicester — United Kingdom) — Z.J.R. Lock v British Gas Trading Limited (Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Composition of remuneration — Basic salary and commission according to turnover realised)

8

2014/C 253/11

Case C-557/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (Article 101 TFEU — Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party (Umbrella pricing) — Causal link)

9

2014/C 253/12

Case C-56/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal (Directives 92/40/EEC and 2005/94/EC — Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16, 17 and 47 — Measures for the control of avian influenza — Compensation for damage)

9

2014/C 253/13

Case C-105/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 34, 36 and 137 — Payment entitlements — Basis of calculation — Premiums paid in respect of cattle and land held by the farmer during the reference period — Modification of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels — Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid — Application by the farmer for a reduction in the number and an increase in the unit value of his payment entitlements — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 73a(2a) — Lawfulness)

10

2014/C 253/14

Case C-255/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — I v Health Service Executive (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 11 — National of a Member State insured in his State of residence — Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State — Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives — Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State — Definition of residence and stay)

11

2014/C 253/15

Case C-339/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/74/EC — Articles 3 and 5(2) — Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems — Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive)

12

2014/C 253/16

Case C-360/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others (Copyright — Information Society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(1) and (5) — Reproduction — Exceptions and limitations — Creation of copies of an internet site on-screen and in the cache of the hard disk in the course of browsing the internet — Temporary act of reproduction — Transient or incidental act — Integral and essential part of a technological process — Lawful use — Independent economic significance)

13

2014/C 253/17

Case C-129/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 50 and 52 — Ne bis in idem principle — Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Penalty which has been enforced or which is actually in the process of being enforced)

13

2014/C 253/18

Case C-146/14 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi (Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 15 — Detention — Extension of detention — Obligations of the administrative or judicial authority — Review by a judicial authority — Third-country national without identity documents — Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision — Refusal of the embassy of the third country concerned to issue an identity document enabling the third-country national to be returned — Risk of absconding — Reasonable prospect of removal — Lack of cooperation — Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned)

14

2014/C 253/19

Case C-520/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013 — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

15

2014/C 253/20

Case C-177/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 April 2014 — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado

16

2014/C 253/21

Case C-183/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2014 — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

16

2014/C 253/22

Case C-216/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci

17

2014/C 253/23

Case C-244/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

18

2014/C 253/24

Case C-250/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 26 May 2014 — Air France — KLM v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

18

2014/C 253/25

Case C-254/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 26 May 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika

19

2014/C 253/26

Case C-265/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2014 by Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-292/11 Cemex and Others v Commission

19

2014/C 253/27

Case C-272/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

21

2014/C 253/28

Case C-286/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission

21

2014/C 253/29

Case C-296/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission

Greece

Commission

22

2014/C 253/30

Case C-592/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)

22

2014/C 253/31

Joined Cases C-215/13 P and C-216/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 31 March 2014 — Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

22

2014/C 253/32

Case C-283/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014 — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission, Denmark

23

General Court

2014/C 253/33

Case T-595/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark VINO DI RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

24

2014/C 253/34

Case T-260/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Spain v Commission (Fisheries — Conservation of fishery resources — Spain exceeding mackerel fishing quotas in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 for 2010 — Deductions from fishing quotas for 2011 to 2015 — Rights of the defense — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

24

2014/C 253/35

Case T-273/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

25

2014/C 253/36

Case T-330/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Hut.com v OHIM — Intersport France (THE HUT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark THE HUT — Earlier national word mark LA HUTTE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

26

2014/C 253/37

Case T-382/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2014 — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Nobel — Earlier national word mark NOBEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

26

2014/C 253/38

Case T-523/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Sani — Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

27

2014/C 253/39

Case T-207/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

27

2014/C 253/40

Case T-305/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Unicid v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

28

2014/C 253/41

Case T-526/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Axa Versicherung v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

29

2014/C 253/42

Case T-239/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application — No need to adjudicate)

29

2014/C 253/43

Case T-427/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.) (Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gruppo Norton S.r.l. — Earlier national figurative mark NORTON HISPAŃO — Rule 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

30

2014/C 253/44

Case T-252/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

30

2014/C 253/45

Case T-253/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

31

2014/C 253/46

Case T-256/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Giuntoli/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

32

2014/C 253/47

Case T-269/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)

32

2014/C 253/48

Case T-273/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)

33

2014/C 253/49

Case T-278/14: Action brought on 27 April 2014 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (Belt)

34

2014/C 253/50

Case T-335/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS)

35

2014/C 253/51

Case T-339/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Kurchenko v Council

36

2014/C 253/52

Case T-346/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

37

2014/C 253/53

Case T-347/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

39

2014/C 253/54

Case T-348/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

40

2014/C 253/55

Case T-354/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex)

41

2014/C 253/56

Case T-356/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)

42

2014/C 253/57

Case T-357/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Experience Hendrix v OHIM — JH Licence (Jimi Hendrix)

43

2014/C 253/58

Case T-358/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)

44

2014/C 253/59

Case T-359/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Accelerate (COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE)

44

2014/C 253/60

Case T-360/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)

45

2014/C 253/61

Case T-363/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Secolux v Commission

46

2014/C 253/62

Case T-365/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE)

47

2014/C 253/63

Case T-366/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good)

48

2014/C 253/64

Case T-369/14: Action brought on 29 May 2014 — Sequoia Capital Operations v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)

49

2014/C 253/65

Case T-385/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)

49

2014/C 253/66

Case T-386/14: Action brought on 24 May 2014 — Fih Holding and Fih Erhversbank v Commission

50

2014/C 253/67

Case T-401/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Duro Felguera v Commission

51

2014/C 253/68

Case T-406/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Promoinmo v Commission

52

2014/C 253/69

Case T-407/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Gres La Sagra v Commission

53

2014/C 253/70

Case T-408/14: Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Venatto Design v Commission

53

2014/C 253/71

Case T-415/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Embutidos Rodríguez v Commission

54

2014/C 253/72

Case T-416/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission

55

2014/C 253/73

Case T-417/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Afar 4 v Commission

55

2014/C 253/74

Case T-426/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos v Commission

56

2014/C 253/75

Case T-427/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Almoauto v Commission

56

2014/C 253/76

Case T-428/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Gasiber 2000 v Commission

57

2014/C 253/77

Case T-429/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Uriinmuebles v Commission

57

2014/C 253/78

Case T-432/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission

58

2014/C 253/79

Case T-433/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Superficies de Alimentación v Commission

58

2014/C 253/80

Case T-435/14: Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council

59

2014/C 253/81

Case T-436/14: Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Neka Novin v Council

60

2014/C 253/82

Case T-442/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission

60

2014/C 253/83

Case T-443/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG v Commission

61

2014/C 253/84

Case T-452/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

62

2014/C 253/85

Case T-461/14: Action brought on 20 June 2014 — Arocasa v Commission

63

2014/C 253/86

Case T-465/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Vego Supermercados v Commission

63

2014/C 253/87

Case T-467/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission

64

2014/C 253/88

Case T-469/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Dordal v Commission

64

2014/C 253/89

Case T-479/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Kendrion v Court of Justice of the European Union

65

2014/C 253/90

Cases T-433/11 and T-98/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

66

2014/C 253/91

Case T-109/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Othman v Council

66

2014/C 253/92

Case T-477/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

66

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 253/93

Case F-24/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — BN v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Action for annulment — Official of grade AD 14 occupying a post as Head of Unit — Allegation of psychological harassment against the Director-General — Mobility exercise — Refusal to accept appointment to a post of Advisor in another Directorate-General with the loss of the salary increase for Heads of Unit — Decision on a temporary transfer to another Advisor post — Interest of the service — Principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade — Action for compensation — Harm arising from non-decision-making conduct)

67

2014/C 253/94

Case F-119/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff)

67

2014/C 253/95

Case F-120/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Coutureau v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed–term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff)

68

2014/C 253/96

Case F-121/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Maynard v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff)

69

2014/C 253/97

Case F-66/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Molina Solano v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff)

69

2014/C 253/98

Case F-67/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Rihn v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff)

70

2014/C 253/99

Case F-56/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission

70

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/1

---

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

2014/C 253/01

Last publication

OJ C 245, 28.7.2014

Past publications

OJ C 235, 21.7.2014

OJ C 223, 14.7.2014

OJ C 212, 7.7.2014

OJ C 202, 30.6.2014

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014

OJ C 184, 16.6.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-547/11) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Decisions 2006/323/EC and 2007/375/EC - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia - Recovery - Decisions to suspend the enforcement of a demand for payment taken by a national court))

2014/C 253/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006, L 119, p. 12) and Articles 4 and 6 of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (OJ L 2007 L 147, p. 29) — Infringement of Article 288 TFEU and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Requirement of immediate and effective enforcement of the Commission’s decisions — Inadequacy of the procedures for the recovery of the unlawful aid

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy and Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively [C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)], the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 of Decision 2006/323, Article 4 of Decision 2007/375 and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.
  By failing to communicate, within the prescribed period, the information referred to in Article 6(1) of Decision 2006/323 and Article 6(2) of Decision 2007/375, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under both those provisions and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy and Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively [C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)], the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 of Decision 2006/323, Article 4 of Decision 2007/375 and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.

By failing to communicate, within the prescribed period, the information referred to in Article 6(1) of Decision 2006/323 and Article 6(2) of Decision 2007/375, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under both those provisions and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.

| 2) | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12) (1)

((Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State - Scope of EU law - Special European Union-OCTs arrangements))

2014/C 253/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 63 TFEU and 64 TFEU — Territorial scope — Movements of capital from a Member State to one of its overseas territories — Whether or not the overseas territory is to be regarded as a third country

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a tax measure of a Member State which restricts movements of capital between that Member State and its own overseas country and territory whilst pursuing the objective of combating tax avoidance in an effective and proportionate manner.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) v European Commission

(Case C-35/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Single and continuous infringement))

2014/C 253/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) (represented by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and E. Abril Fernández, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on ASPLA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs of this appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission

(Case C-36/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 253/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Armando Álvarez SA (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, E. Garayar Gutiérrez and C. Ruixo Claramunt, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-78/06 Álvarez v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Armando Álvarez

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Armando Álvarez SA to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Armando Álvarez SA to pay the costs of this appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-198/12) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal market in energy - Gas transmission - Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 - Articles 14(1) and 16(1) and (2)(b) - Obligation to guarantee maximum capacity - Virtual reverse flow gas capacity - Admissibility))

2014/C 253/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, S. Petrova, O. Beynet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 14(1) and Article 16(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36) — Obligation to ensure that all market participants are guaranteed maximum capacity — No physical interconnection between the transit system and the national gas transmission system — Intergovernmental agreements preventing compliance with the obligation to make maximum capacity available — Scope of the obligation set out in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-356/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Point 6.4 of Annex III - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 20, 21(1) and 26 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Driving licences - Physical and mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle - Minimum standards - Visual acuity - Equal treatment - No possibility of derogation - Proportionality))

2014/C 253/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Glatzel

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Validity of point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18), as amended by Commission Directive 2009/113/EC of 25 August 2009 (OJ 2009 L 223, p. 31) — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Minimum standards concerning physical and mental fitness to drive a motor vehicle of categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 and D1E — Requirement for visual acuity of at least 0,1, with optical correction if necessary, in the worse of the two eyes

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the question does not reveal any information capable of affecting the validity of point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2009/113/EC of 25 August 2009 in the light of Articles 20, 21(1) or 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV

(Case C-360/12) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 - Community trade mark - Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - International jurisdiction relating to infringement - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred - Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act))

2014/C 253/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

Defendant: First Note Perfumes NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Article 5(3) 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) — Community trade mark — International jurisdiction in matters of infringement — Act committed in one Member State consisting of assistance in an infringement carried out in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed’ in Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one Member State, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another Member State, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the Member State where the court seised is situated; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed’ in Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one Member State, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another Member State, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the Member State where the court seised is situated;

| 2. | Article 5(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark, prohibited by the law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) of the Member State in which the court seised is situated, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place where the event giving rise to the damage resulting from the infringement of that law occurred, for a court in that Member State where the presumed perpetrator who is sued there did not himself act there. By contrast, in such a case, that provision does allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place of occurrence of damage, to hear an action for damages based on that national law brought against a person established in another Member State and who is alleged to have committed, in that State, an act which caused or may cause damage within the jurisdiction of that court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark, prohibited by the law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) of the Member State in which the court seised is situated, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place where the event giving rise to the damage resulting from the infringement of that law occurred, for a court in that Member State where the presumed perpetrator who is sued there did not himself act there. By contrast, in such a case, that provision does allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place of occurrence of damage, to hear an action for damages based on that national law brought against a person established in another Member State and who is alleged to have committed, in that State, an act which caused or may cause damage within the jurisdiction of that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M

(Case C-398/12) (1)

((Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence - Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light - Concept of person whose trial has been ‘finally disposed of’ - Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts - Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle))

2014/C 253/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Fermo

Party in the criminal proceedings in the main action

M

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Fermo — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Concept of ‘person whose trial has been finally disposed of’ — Final decision of no case to answer made by a court of a Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that an order making a finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court which precludes, in the Contracting State in which that order was made, the bringing of new criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against the person to whom that finding applies, unless new facts and/or evidence against that person come to light, must be considered to be a final judgment, for the purposes of that article, precluding new proceedings against the same person in respect of the same acts in another Contracting State.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Leicester — United Kingdom) — Z.J.R. Lock v British Gas Trading Limited

(Case C-539/12) (1)

((Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Composition of remuneration - Basic salary and commission according to turnover realised))

2014/C 253/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Employment Tribunal, Leicester

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z.J.R. Lock

Defendant: British Gas Trading Limited

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal, Leicester — United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) as amended by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Consultant being paid a basic salary together with monthly premiums according to the turnover realised and the number of sale contracts concluded, paid in arrears — Maintenance of the basic salary during annual leave, but not the premiums, except those linked to the services provided before the leave

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice under which a worker whose remuneration consists of a basic salary and commission, the amount of which is fixed by reference to the contracts entered into by the employer as a result of sales achieved by that worker, is entitled, in respect of his paid annual leave, to remuneration composed exclusively of his basic salary. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice under which a worker whose remuneration consists of a basic salary and commission, the amount of which is fixed by reference to the contracts entered into by the employer as a result of sales achieved by that worker, is entitled, in respect of his paid annual leave, to remuneration composed exclusively of his basic salary.

| 2) | The methods of calculating the commission to which a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, is entitled in respect of his annual leave must be assessed by the national court or tribunal on the basis of the rules and criteria set out by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in the light of the objective pursued by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The methods of calculating the commission to which a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, is entitled in respect of his annual leave must be assessed by the national court or tribunal on the basis of the rules and criteria set out by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in the light of the objective pursued by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-557/12) (1)

((Article 101 TFEU - Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article - Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party (‘Umbrella pricing’) - Causal link))

2014/C 253/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 101 TFEU — Damages for the loss caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Loss resulting from the higher price charged by an undertaking as a result of a prohibited cartel to which it is not a party

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the interpretation and application of domestic legislation enacted by a Member State which categorically excludes, for legal reasons, any civil liability of undertakings belonging to a cartel for loss resulting from the fact that an undertaking not party to the cartel, having regard to the practices of the cartel, set its prices higher than would otherwise have been expected under competitive conditions.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-56/13) (1)

((Directives 92/40/EEC and 2005/94/EC - Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16, 17 and 47 - Measures for the control of avian influenza - Compensation for damage))

2014/C 253/12

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt

Respondent: Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (OJ 1992 L 167, p. 1) and Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (OJ 2006 L 10, p. 16) — Undertaking engaged in agricultural activities relating to the keeping of animals, including the fattening of turkeys, refused permission to keep turkeys for fattening in a rearing enclosure located in a protection and surveillance zone established by administrative decision in respect of avian influenza — Compensation for damage caused to individuals by interim protection measures taken in the course of implementation of EU legislation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Commission Decisions 2006/105/EC of 15 February 2006 concerning certain interim protection measures in relation to suspected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in Hungary and 2006/115/EC of 17 February 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community and repealing Decisions 2006/86/EC, 2006/90/EC, 2006/91/EC, 2006/94/EC, 2006/104/EC and 2006/105/EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude (i) national measures such as the administrative decisions of 15 and 21 February 2006 ordering the establishment of a protection zone in the administrative territory of Csátalja and Nagybaracska (Hungary) and prohibiting the movement of poultry within that zone or (ii) an administrative opinion such as that of 23 February 2006, refusing to grant an undertaking such as the appellant in the main proceedings permission to keep turkeys in its rearing enclosure at Nagybaracska. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Decisions 2006/105/EC of 15 February 2006 concerning certain interim protection measures in relation to suspected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in Hungary and 2006/115/EC of 17 February 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community and repealing Decisions 2006/86/EC, 2006/90/EC, 2006/91/EC, 2006/94/EC, 2006/104/EC and 2006/105/EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude (i) national measures such as the administrative decisions of 15 and 21 February 2006 ordering the establishment of a protection zone in the administrative territory of Csátalja and Nagybaracska (Hungary) and prohibiting the movement of poultry within that zone or (ii) an administrative opinion such as that of 23 February 2006, refusing to grant an undertaking such as the appellant in the main proceedings permission to keep turkeys in its rearing enclosure at Nagybaracska.

| 2. | First, Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115 must be interpreted to the effect that they neither include nor refer to any provisions establishing a system of compensation for damage caused by the measures for which they provide and, second, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings — which does not provide for full compensation, including in respect of loss of profit, for damage sustained as a result of the adoption, in accordance with EU law, of national protection measures against avian influenza — in the light of the right to an effective remedy, the right to property and the freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

First, Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115 must be interpreted to the effect that they neither include nor refer to any provisions establishing a system of compensation for damage caused by the measures for which they provide and, second, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings — which does not provide for full compensation, including in respect of loss of profit, for damage sustained as a result of the adoption, in accordance with EU law, of national protection measures against avian influenza — in the light of the right to an effective remedy, the right to property and the freedom to conduct a business.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-105/13) (1)

((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 34, 36 and 137 - Payment entitlements - Basis of calculation - Premiums paid in respect of cattle and land held by the farmer during the reference period - Modification of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels - Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid - Application by the farmer for a reduction in the number and an increase in the unit value of his payment entitlements - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 73a(2a) - Lawfulness))

2014/C 253/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 34, 36 and 137 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Direct support schemes — Single payment scheme — Farmer who obtained, in 2006, payment entitlements acquired on the basis of his non-area-related production and the areas belonging to him — Method of identifying the areas subsequently amended — Reduction in the hectares eligible for aid

Operative part of the judgment

Article 73a(2a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulations (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 73/2009, as well as for the implementation of cross-compliance provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 380/2009 of 8 May 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer’s payment entitlements must be recalculated when, in the initial determination of his payment entitlements, that farmer’s reference amount was divided by too high a number of hectares because of the method for determining the area of agricultural parcels used at that time in the Member State concerned. Article 137 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 does not apply to a correction under Article 73a(2a) of Regulation No 796/2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — I v Health Service Executive

(Case C-255/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 11 - National of a Member State insured in his State of residence - Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State - Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives - Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State - Definition of ‘residence’ and ‘stay’))

2014/C 253/14

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I

Defendant: Health Service Executive

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Concept of ‘staying’ in a Member State other than the competent Member State — Citizen of a Member State suffering for 11 years from a serious medical condition which first manifested itself during a holiday in a second Member State — Citizen compelled to remain in the second Member State as a result of his medical condition

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of Article 19(1) or Article 20(1) and (2) of that regulation, where a European Union national who was resident in one Member State suffers a sudden serious illness while on holiday in a second Member State and is compelled to remain in the latter State for 11 years as a result of that illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives, such a person must be regarded as ‘staying’ in the second Member State if the habitual centre of his interests is in the first Member State. It is for the national court to determine the habitual centre of such a person’s interests by carrying out an assessment of all the relevant facts and taking into account that person’s intention, as may be discerned from those facts, the mere fact that that person has remained in the second Member State for a long time not being sufficient in itself alone for him to be regarded as residing in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-339/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/74/EC - Articles 3 and 5(2) - Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems - Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive))

2014/C 253/15

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, F Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | By having failed to ensure, from 1 January 2012, that laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By having failed to ensure, from 1 January 2012, that laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens.

| 2. | The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others

(Case C-360/13) (1)

((Copyright - Information Society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(1) and (5) - Reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Creation of copies of an internet site on-screen and in the cache of the hard disk in the course of browsing the internet - Temporary act of reproduction - Transient or incidental act - Integral and essential part of a technological process - Lawful use - Independent economic significance))

2014/C 253/16

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd

Respondents: The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Concept of temporary, transient or incidental acts of reproduction which constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process — Reproduction of a webpage which is automatically stored in the memory cache and on the screen of a computer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic

(Case C-129/14 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 50 and 52 - Ne bis in idem principle - Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Penalty which ‘has been enforced’ or which is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’))

2014/C 253/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Party in the main proceedings

Zoran Spasic

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Condition that the penalty has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party — Person having been convicted and penalised by a custodial sentence and a fine for the same facts in another Member State, but not having served his prison sentence.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, which makes the application of the ne bis in idem principle subject to the condition that, upon conviction and sentencing, the penalty imposed ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’, is compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in which that principle is enshrined. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, which makes the application of the ne bis in idem principle subject to the condition that, upon conviction and sentencing, the penalty imposed ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’, is compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in which that principle is enshrined.

| 2) | Article 54 of that convention must be interpreted as meaning that the mere payment of a fine by a person sentenced by the self-same decision of a court of another Member State to a custodial sentence that has not been served is not sufficient to consider that the penalty ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 54 of that convention must be interpreted as meaning that the mere payment of a fine by a person sentenced by the self-same decision of a court of another Member State to a custodial sentence that has not been served is not sufficient to consider that the penalty ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi

(Case C-146/14 PPU) (1)

((Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 15 - Detention - Extension of detention - Obligations of the administrative or judicial authority - Review by a judicial authority - Third-country national without identity documents - Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision - Refusal of the embassy of the third country concerned to issue an identity document enabling the third-country national to be returned - Risk of absconding - Reasonable prospect of removal - Lack of cooperation - Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned))

2014/C 253/18

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Party to the main proceedings

Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad –Interpretation of Article 15(1)(a) and (b), (3), (4) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Removal of an illegally staying third-country national — Detention — Extension of detention — Whether permissible to exceed the maximum length of detention on the ground that a person has no identity documents — Obstacles to implementation of a removal decision — Reasonable prospect of removal — Refusal of the Embassy of the country of origin of the person concerned to issue the document necessary for the return journey — Whether the Member State concerned is under an obligation to issue a temporary document relating to the status of the person concerned

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that any decision adopted by a competent authority, on expiry of the maximum period allowed for the initial detention of a third-country national, on the further course to take concerning the detention must be in the form of a written measure that includes the reasons in fact and in law for that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that any decision adopted by a competent authority, on expiry of the maximum period allowed for the initial detention of a third-country national, on the further course to take concerning the detention must be in the form of a written measure that includes the reasons in fact and in law for that decision;

| 2. | Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘supervision’ that has to be undertaken by a judicial authority dealing with an application for extension of the detention of a third-country national must permit that authority to decide, on a case-by-case basis, on the merits of whether the detention of the third-country national concerned should be extended, whether detention may be replaced with a less coercive measure or whether the person concerned should be released, that authority thus having power to take into account the facts stated and evidence adduced by the administrative authority which has brought the matter before it, as well as any facts, evidence and observations which may be submitted to the judicial authority in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘supervision’ that has to be undertaken by a judicial authority dealing with an application for extension of the detention of a third-country national must permit that authority to decide, on a case-by-case basis, on the merits of whether the detention of the third-country national concerned should be extended, whether detention may be replaced with a less coercive measure or whether the person concerned should be released, that authority thus having power to take into account the facts stated and evidence adduced by the administrative authority which has brought the matter before it, as well as any facts, evidence and observations which may be submitted to the judicial authority in the course of the proceedings;

| 3. | Article 15(1) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which an initial six-month period of detention may be extended solely because the third-country national concerned has no identity documents. It is for the referring court alone to undertake an individual assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in question in order to determine whether a less coercive measure may be applied effectively to that third-country national or whether there is a risk of him absconding; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 15(1) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which an initial six-month period of detention may be extended solely because the third-country national concerned has no identity documents. It is for the referring court alone to undertake an individual assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in question in order to determine whether a less coercive measure may be applied effectively to that third-country national or whether there is a risk of him absconding;

| 4. | Article 15(6)(a) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who, in circumstances such as those in issue in the main proceedings, has not obtained an identity document which would have made it possible for him to be removed from the Member State concerned may be regarded as having demonstrated a ‘lack of cooperation’ within the meaning of that provision only if an examination of his conduct during the period of detention shows that he has not cooperated in the implementation of the removal operation and that it is likely that that operation lasts longer than anticipated because of that conduct, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 15(6)(a) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who, in circumstances such as those in issue in the main proceedings, has not obtained an identity document which would have made it possible for him to be removed from the Member State concerned may be regarded as having demonstrated a ‘lack of cooperation’ within the meaning of that provision only if an examination of his conduct during the period of detention shows that he has not cooperated in the implementation of the removal operation and that it is likely that that operation lasts longer than anticipated because of that conduct, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court;

| 5. | Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot be obliged to issue an autonomous residence permit, or other authorisation conferring a right to stay, to a third-country national who has no identity documents and has not obtained such documentation from his country of origin, after a national court has released the person concerned on the ground that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of removal within the meaning of Article 15(4) of that directive. However, that Member State must, in such a case, provide the third-country national with written confirmation of his situation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot be obliged to issue an autonomous residence permit, or other authorisation conferring a right to stay, to a third-country national who has no identity documents and has not obtained such documentation from his country of origin, after a national court has released the person concerned on the ground that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of removal within the meaning of Article 15(4) of that directive. However, that Member State must, in such a case, provide the third-country national with written confirmation of his situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013 — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

(Case C-520/13)

2014/C 253/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz

Defendant: Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

By order of 27 March 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 April 2014 — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado

(Case C-177/14)

2014/C 253/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María José Regojo Dans

Defendant: Consejo de Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ in clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, include ‘non-permanent staff’ (‘personal eventual’) who are currently governed by Article 12 of Law 7/2007 of 12 April 2007 on the basic regulations relating to public servants and ‘non-permanent staff’ who were previously governed by Article 20(2) of Law 30/1984 of 2 August 1984 on measures for the reform of the civil service? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ in clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, include ‘non-permanent staff’ (‘personal eventual’) who are currently governed by Article 12 of Law 7/2007 of 12 April 2007 on the basic regulations relating to public servants and ‘non-permanent staff’ who were previously governed by Article 20(2) of Law 30/1984 of 2 August 1984 on measures for the reform of the civil service?

| 2. | Is the principle of non-discrimination in clause 4(4) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP applicable to such ‘non-permanent staff’, so that they may be granted the right to receive and be paid the remuneration in respect of length of service which is paid to career civil servants, staff engaged under employment contracts for an indefinite duration, interim (non-established) civil servants and staff engaged under temporary employment contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the principle of non-discrimination in clause 4(4) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP applicable to such ‘non-permanent staff’, so that they may be granted the right to receive and be paid the remuneration in respect of length of service which is paid to career civil servants, staff engaged under employment contracts for an indefinite duration, interim (non-established) civil servants and staff engaged under temporary employment contracts?

| 3. | Do the rules, laid down in the two aforementioned Spanish laws, whereby the appointment of such ‘non-permanent staff’ and the termination of their appointment are not — on account of the positions of trust involved — subject to any restrictions, come within the objective grounds which under clause 4 may justify different treatment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the rules, laid down in the two aforementioned Spanish laws, whereby the appointment of such ‘non-permanent staff’ and the termination of their appointment are not — on account of the positions of trust involved — subject to any restrictions, come within the objective grounds which under clause 4 may justify different treatment?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 11 April 2014 — Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-183/14)

2014/C 253/21

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Radu Florin Salomie, Nicolae Vasile Oltean

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred

| 1) | May a natural person who enters into a partnership contract with other natural persons, a partnership without legal personality that is not declared or registered for tax purposes, intended for the execution of future works (building) on a site forming part of the personal assets of some of the contracting parties be regarded, in the light of the circumstances of the main case, as a taxable person for VAT purposes within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the VAT Directive (1), where, under the fiscal rules, the tax authorities initially treated the transfer of ownership of the buildings on the site forming part of the personal assets of some of the contracting parties as sales falling within the scope of the management of the private wealth of such persons? |
| --- | --- |

1)

May a natural person who enters into a partnership contract with other natural persons, a partnership without legal personality that is not declared or registered for tax purposes, intended for the execution of future works (building) on a site forming part of the personal assets of some of the contracting parties be regarded, in the light of the circumstances of the main case, as a taxable person for VAT purposes within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the VAT Directive (1), where, under the fiscal rules, the tax authorities initially treated the transfer of ownership of the buildings on the site forming part of the personal assets of some of the contracting parties as sales falling within the scope of the management of the private wealth of such persons?

| 2) | In the light of the circumstances of the main case, must the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, and the other general principles relating to VAT, as laid down in Directive 2006/112, be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, after initially levying on a natural person tax on the income deriving from the transfer of ownership of properties forming part of his personal wealth, the tax authorities — without there having been any substantial amendment of primary law — review the position after a period of two years on the basis of the same facts and classifies the same transactions as economic activities subject to VAT, calculating the incidental charges retroactively? |
| --- | --- |

2)

In the light of the circumstances of the main case, must the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, and the other general principles relating to VAT, as laid down in Directive 2006/112, be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, after initially levying on a natural person tax on the income deriving from the transfer of ownership of properties forming part of his personal wealth, the tax authorities — without there having been any substantial amendment of primary law — review the position after a period of two years on the basis of the same facts and classifies the same transactions as economic activities subject to VAT, calculating the incidental charges retroactively?

| 3) | Must Articles 167, 168 and 213 of the VAT Directive, considered in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding, in the circumstances of the main case, the tax authorities from refusing a taxable person the right to deduct the VAT owed or paid on goods or services used for the purposes of taxable transactions simply because he was not registered as a taxable person for VAT purposes at the time when the supplies in question were carried out? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Must Articles 167, 168 and 213 of the VAT Directive, considered in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding, in the circumstances of the main case, the tax authorities from refusing a taxable person the right to deduct the VAT owed or paid on goods or services used for the purposes of taxable transactions simply because he was not registered as a taxable person for VAT purposes at the time when the supplies in question were carried out?

| 4) | In the light of the circumstances of the main case, may Article 179 of [Directive 2006/112] be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person to whom the special exemption scheme is applied and who has belatedly applied for registration for VAT purposes is under an obligation to pay the tax that should have been levied, but has no right to subtract the amount of tax deductible for each tax period, it being the case that that right of deduction will be exercised subsequently on the basis of the tax return submitted after registration of the taxable person for VAT purposes, which may have repercussions for calculation of the incidental charges? |
| --- | --- |

4)

In the light of the circumstances of the main case, may Article 179 of [Directive 2006/112] be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person to whom the special exemption scheme is applied and who has belatedly applied for registration for VAT purposes is under an obligation to pay the tax that should have been levied, but has no right to subtract the amount of tax deductible for each tax period, it being the case that that right of deduction will be exercised subsequently on the basis of the tax return submitted after registration of the taxable person for VAT purposes, which may have repercussions for calculation of the incidental charges?

---

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci

(Case C-216/14)

2014/C 253/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Laufen

Parties to the main proceedings

Gavril Covaci

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Traunstein

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 1(2), 2(1) and 8 of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding a court order that requires, under Paragraph 184 of the German Law on the Judicial System, accused persons to bring an appeal only in the language of the court, here in German, in order for it to be effective? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 1(2), 2(1) and 8 of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding a court order that requires, under Paragraph 184 of the German Law on the Judicial System, accused persons to bring an appeal only in the language of the court, here in German, in order for it to be effective?

| 2. | Are Articles 2, 3(1)(c), 6(1) and 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (2) to be interpreted as precluding the accused from being required to appoint a person authorised to accept service, where the period for bringing an appeal begins to run upon service on the person authorised and ultimately it is irrelevant whether the accused is at all aware of the offence of which he is accused? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 2, 3(1)(c), 6(1) and 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (2) to be interpreted as precluding the accused from being required to appoint a person authorised to accept service, where the period for bringing an appeal begins to run upon service on the person authorised and ultimately it is irrelevant whether the accused is at all aware of the offence of which he is accused?

---

(1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/18

---

Action brought on 20 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-244/14)

2014/C 253/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/49/EC in so far as it failed to fully to transpose Articles 3(k), 10(5), 11(2), 17(1), 19(2), 22(3) and 25(3) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/49/EC in so far as it failed to fully to transpose Articles 3(k), 10(5), 11(2), 17(1), 19(2), 22(3) and 25(3) of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an examination of the legal position in the Republic of Austria, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the correct transposition of some of the provisions of Directive 2004/49/EC (1). The concerns relate essentially to provisions concerning safety certification and safety authorisation, national safety authorities, investigations, the investigation body and safety recommendations.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 26 May 2014 — Air France — KLM v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

(Case C-250/14)

2014/C 253/24

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air France — KLM

Defendant: Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the issue of the ticket may be treated as the effective performance of the transport service and that the sums retained by an airline company where the holder of an air ticket has not used his ticket, which is no longer valid, are subject to value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the issue of the ticket may be treated as the effective performance of the transport service and that the sums retained by an airline company where the holder of an air ticket has not used his ticket, which is no longer valid, are subject to value added tax?

| 2. | In that case, must the tax received be paid onwards to the Treasury on receipt of payment of the price, even though the travel may not have taken place as a result of the customer’s acts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In that case, must the tax received be paid onwards to the Treasury on receipt of payment of the price, even though the travel may not have taken place as a result of the customer’s acts?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 26 May 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika

(Case C-254/14)

2014/C 253/25

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju

Defendant: Đuro Vladika

Question referred

What are the principles on the basis of which, under EU law, consumers pay for water? That is to say, are consumers required to pay only for the water which they have consumed, as evidenced by the meter reading, at the price of the water alone, or must they pay a price for the water which will reimburse the costs relating to the activity carried out by the municipal operators (operations, on-going maintenance, management of the infrastructure, employees’ salaries, etc.)?

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/19

---

Appeal brought on 2 June 2014 by Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-292/11 Cemex and Others v Commission

(Case C-265/14 P)

2014/C 253/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Cemex S.A.B. de C.V., New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España, S.A., Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion and Cemex Austria AG (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, H. González Durántez and B. Martínez Corral, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014.

| — | Rule on the merits of the action for annulment brought before the General Court and annul the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule on the merits of the action for annulment brought before the General Court and annul the Decision.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Cemex and its subsidiaries both in the proceedings at first instance before the General Court and in the present proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Cemex and its subsidiaries both in the proceedings at first instance before the General Court and in the present proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1 —   Erroneous assessment of the grounds of the Decision

The appellants claim that the General Court erred in its assessment of the grounds of the contested decision requesting information, which was formulated in general terms. The General Court did not take into consideration in its analysis the circumstances of the case in point or the content of the contested decision, nor did it make an assessment of proportionality in the light of the possibilities actually open to the Commission, the period in which the decision at issue was to be taken and the technical circumstances.

2 —   Erroneous assessment of the necessity of the information

The General Court also erred in its ruling as to whether the information sought in the contested decision was necessary, given that some of that information was already in the Commission’s possession or had no bearing on the subject-matter of the investigation.

3 —   Error in the grounds of the judgment under appeal and in the assessment of an infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003
   (1)
  in relation to the nature of the information sought

The appellants also claim that there is an error in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, for the General Court has not given a ruling on some of the claims relating to the nature of the information sought, the reply to which required value judgments on hypothetical situations. Moreover, the General Court erred in finding that there was no infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, given that the contested decision required answers to questions that did not deal with facts and bore no relation to factual matters.

4 —   Erroneous assessment of the criterion of proportionality

The appellants claim that the General Court erred in dismissing their action for annulment in part of the contested decision requesting information, inasmuch as that court considered that by adopting the decision and fixing the time allowed for responding, the Commission did not act inappropriately or disproportionately. The appellants also claim that the General Court erred in finding that the Commission’s request for information was justified, despite the fact the appellants’ response involved a particularly heavy workload.

5 —   Erroneous assessment of the existence of an infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No 1
   (2)

The General Court erred in finding that that, by giving notice of the decision at issue only in Spanish, the Commission had not infringed Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1.

6 —   Erroneous assessment of an infringement of the principle of sound administration

Finally, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in not finding that various courses of conduct of the Commission, which drew criticism from the General Court, did not, however, constitute an infringement of the principle of sound administration.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFUE]

OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, 17, p. 385; EE 01/01, p. 8)

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

(Case C-272/14)

2014/C 253/27

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

Question referred

Must spindles with the specific characteristics as described be classified under CN heading 7318 or 8302?

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/21

---

Action brought on 11 June 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-286/14)

2014/C 253/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, A. Troupiotis and M. Menegatti, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 (1) of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 (1) of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action the Parliament raises a single plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it in Article 21(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (2). The contested regulation amends Annex I of the basic act, adding a new Part VI, which concerns transport funding priorities of multiannual and annual work programmes. According to the Parliament, the Commission thus exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation in adopting a delegated act which ‘modifies’ that basic regulation, instead of merely ‘completing’ it, as required of it by Article 21(3).

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 80, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 348, p. 129.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/22

---

Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission

(Case C-296/14 P)

2014/C 253/29

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias and Α. Vasilopoulou)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union, for the reasons more specifically set out, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic, annul the contested decision of the European Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union, for the reasons more specifically set out, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic, annul the contested decision of the European Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the ground of appeal on which it relies, the Hellenic Republic maintains that EU law has been infringed because the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) and (3)(b) TFEU with regard to the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time at issue.

More specifically, by the first part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that by reason of a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU the General Court of the European Union held that the measures at issue constituted a selective economic advantage for the beneficiaries which was sufficient to threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States given the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time, while by the second part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU because it restricted the regulatory scope of that provision to the terms of the Communication on the TCF [Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures] notwithstanding the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)

(Case C-592/12) (1)

2014/C 253/30

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 March 2014 — Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

(Joined Cases C-215/13 P and C-216/13 P) (1)

2014/C 253/31

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014 — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission, Denmark

(Case C-283/13 P) (1)

2014/C 253/32

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

---

General Court

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA)

(Case T-595/10) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RIPASSA - Earlier national word mark VINO DI RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 253/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer, allowed to replace A. Zenato)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Mr Alberto Zenato

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-260/11) (1)

((Fisheries - Conservation of fishery resources - Spain exceeding mackerel fishing quotas in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 for 2010 - Deductions from fishing quotas for 2011 to 2015 - Rights of the defense - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))

2014/C 253/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially N. Díaz Abad and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, then M. Sampoll Pucurull and Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010 (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)

(Case T-273/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 253/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 2150/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Ab in den Urlaub as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Unister GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Unister GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Hut.com v OHIM — Intersport France (THE HUT)

(Case T-330/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark THE HUT - Earlier national word mark LA HUTTE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 253/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Hut.com Ltd (Northwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Intersport France (Longjumeau, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2012 (Case R 814/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersport France and The Hut.com Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders The Hut.com Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders The Hut.com Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2014 — Kampol v OHIM — Colmol (Nobel)

(Case T-382/12) (1)

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

2014/C 253/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kampol sp. z o.o. (Świdnica, Poland) (represented by: J. Kępiński, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Colmol-Colchões, SA (Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2012 (Case R 2286/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Colmol — Colchões, SA and Kampol-K. Humiński & syn sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kampol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kampol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)

(Case T-523/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Sani - Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 253/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2012 (Case R 236/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aujan Industries Co. (S J C) and Global-Invest Bartosz Turek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Rani Refreshments FZCO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Rani Refreshments FZCO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)

(Case T-207/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 253/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 1872 Holdings vof (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Havana Club International SA (Havana, Cuba) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 684/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Havana Club International SA and 1872 Holdings vof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 1872 Holdings vof to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 1872 Holdings vof to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/28

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Unicid v Commission

(Case T-305/09) (1)

((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 253/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union nationale interprofessionnelle cidricole (Unicid) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/29

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Axa Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-526/12) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 253/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission to refuse the applicants access to documents from the case-file in Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass).

Operative part of the order

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

1)

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

| 2) | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Glass Germany GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2)

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Glass Germany GmbH.

| 3) | The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by AXA Versicherung AG. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by AXA Versicherung AG.

| 4) | AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe and AGC Glass Germany are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe and AGC Glass Germany are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/29

---

Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign)

(Case T-239/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 253/42

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ammar Atmeh (Diera-Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sylvie Fretier (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Cuche, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 February 2013 (Joined Cases R 1482/2011-4 and R 1571/2011-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ammar Atmeh and Sylvie Fretier.

Operative part of the order

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

1)

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

| 2) | The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/30

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)

(Case T-427/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Gruppo Norton S.r.l. - Earlier national figurative mark NORTON HISPAŃO - Rule 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

2014/C 253/43

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gruppo Norton Srl (Carini, Italy) (represented by: M. García Lirola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Victoriano Marín Nicolás (Alcantarilla, Spain) (represented by: M. Ruiz Vázquez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 31 May 2013 (Case R 341/2013-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Victoriano Marín Nicolás and Gruppo Norton Srl.

Operative part of the order

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

1)

The action is dismissed.

| 2) | Gruppo Norton Srl is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Gruppo Norton Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/30

---

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-252/14)

2014/C 253/44

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 936/2013-4, and accordingly order that Community trade mark No 1 0 2 48  367‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 936/2013-4, and accordingly order that Community trade mark No 1 0 2 48  367‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

| — | order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Chemo Ibérica, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 48  367

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Novartis AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/31

---

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-253/14)

2014/C 253/45

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1022/2013-4, and accordingly order that figurative Community trade mark No 1 0 2 49  035‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1022/2013-4, and accordingly order that figurative Community trade mark No 1 0 2 49  035‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

| — | order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Chemo Ibérica, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 49  035

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Novartis AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/32

---

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Giuntoli/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

(Case T-256/14)

2014/C 253/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Giuntoli (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

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 February 2014 given in Case R 886/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 February 2014 given in Case R 886/2013-2;

| — | Order OHIM and those who oppose this request to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and those who oppose this request to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘CREMERIA TOSCANA’ for goods and services in the Classes 30, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 5 49  346

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société des produits Nestlé SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘la Cremeria’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the appealed decision, accepted the opposition and partially rejected the CTM application.

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/32

---

Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)

(Case T-269/14)

2014/C 253/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: City Index Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA (New York, USA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in case R 172/2013-2 that upheld the opposition in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in case R 172/2013-2 that upheld the opposition in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITY INDEX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 4 58  094

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘citi’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 42, the community and national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘citifinancial’ and ‘citibank’, as well as the community and national word marks ‘CITICAPITAL’, ‘CITIMONEY’, ‘CITIFINANCIAL’, ‘CITI’, ‘CITIBOND’, ‘CITICONNECT’, ‘CITIBANK’ and ‘CITICARD’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the Community trade mark application partially rejected

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/33

---

Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)

(Case T-273/14)

2014/C 253/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co.KG (Wendlingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Overturn decision R 2280/2012-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17/02/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Overturn decision R 2280/2012-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17/02/2014;

| — | Amend the contested decision to show that the appeal against Decision No 5589 C of the Cancellation Division of 21/11/2012 is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Amend the contested decision to show that the appeal against Decision No 5589 C of the Cancellation Division of 21/11/2012 is rejected;

| — | Condemn the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Condemn the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark LITHOFIX for goods in Classes 19 and 31 — Community trade mark registration No 7 5 04  368

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — International and national word marks ‘LITHOFIN’ for goods in Class 1

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and the Community trade mark declared invalid for all the goods in Class 19

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/34

---

Action brought on 27 April 2014 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (Belt)

(Case T-278/14)

2014/C 253/49

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | put the proceedings back to the stage at which the CD containing invoices of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity was served on the applicant and annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2014 in Case R 855/2012-3; in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

put the proceedings back to the stage at which the CD containing invoices of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity was served on the applicant and annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2014 in Case R 855/2012-3; in the alternative,

| — | put the proceedings back to just before the Board of Appeal gave its decision, annulling the contested decision and staying the proceedings until the court proceedings brought by the holder of that Community design against international trade mark No 6 08  499 are disposed of; in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

put the proceedings back to just before the Board of Appeal gave its decision, annulling the contested decision and staying the proceedings until the court proceedings brought by the holder of that Community design against international trade mark No 6 08  499 are disposed of; in the alternative,

| — | grant the present application, declaring that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design has not proved the use of its trade mark and therefore dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity on that ground; in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the present application, declaring that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design has not proved the use of its trade mark and therefore dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity on that ground; in the alternative,

| — | grant the application, dismissing the invalidity proceedings in the light of the arguments set out above; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application, dismissing the invalidity proceedings in the light of the arguments set out above;

| — | together with all of the above, expressly order the defendant and any other party to the proceedings to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

together with all of the above, expressly order the defendant and any other party to the proceedings to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: representation of a belt with the word element ‘DIESEL’ — Registered Community design No 1044150-0003

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Diesel SpA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National and Community word mark ‘DIESEL’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24 and 25

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

| — | failure to provide the applicant with the CD containing the invoices; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to provide the applicant with the CD containing the invoices;

| — | failure to stay the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to stay the proceedings;

| — | the applicant holds Spanish trade mark No 2 5 85  042‘S.D.D. SUPER DIESEL DAIREK’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant holds Spanish trade mark No 2 5 85  042‘S.D.D. SUPER DIESEL DAIREK’;

| — | the remaining proof of use submitted by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is not sufficient; |
| --- | --- |

—

the remaining proof of use submitted by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is not sufficient;

| — | the differences between the signs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the differences between the signs.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/35

---

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS)

(Case T-335/14)

2014/C 253/50

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José-Manuel Davó Lledó (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: J.V. Gil Martí, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 13 March 2014 in Case R 1824/2013-1 and, accordingly, confirm the original decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 July 2013 rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda in respect of Community trade mark No 8 8 94  826‘DoggiS’; order those undertakings to abide by that decision and all its effects; and make an express order for costs against the defendant and other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word element ‘DoggiS’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — Community trade mark No 8 8 94  826

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for the trade mark was made in bad faith

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled in their entirety both the decision of the Cancellation Division and the registration of the contested Community trade mark

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/36

---

Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Kurchenko v Council

(Case T-339/14)

2014/C 253/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko (Chuhuiv, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, M. Drury and A. Swan, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base. Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal base for the decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine (within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU). As the decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the Regulation. At the time that the restrictive measures were imposed, there was no charge or claim against the applicant in any jurisdiction that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law, or violated any human rights in Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base. Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal base for the decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine (within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU). As the decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the Regulation. At the time that the restrictive measures were imposed, there was no charge or claim against the applicant in any jurisdiction that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law, or violated any human rights in Ukraine.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person has been ‘identified as responsible’ for misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or is a person associated with anyone who has been so identified. The only reason given for the listing of the applicant was that he was said to be subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine. There is therefore not even an allegation (applying the Court's reasoning in Case T-256/11 Ezz) that the applicant was a person responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or was associated with a person properly so identified. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person has been ‘identified as responsible’ for misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or is a person associated with anyone who has been so identified. The only reason given for the listing of the applicant was that he was said to be subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine. There is therefore not even an allegation (applying the Court's reasoning in Case T-256/11 Ezz) that the applicant was a person responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or was associated with a person properly so identified.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has at no stage been given particularised information as to the ‘investigation’ that is said to justify his inclusion in the list, still less ‘serious and credible’ or ‘concrete’ evidence to that effect. Despite requests, the Council has failed to provide this information. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has at no stage been given particularised information as to the ‘investigation’ that is said to justify his inclusion in the list, still less ‘serious and credible’ or ‘concrete’ evidence to that effect. Despite requests, the Council has failed to provide this information.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. These reasons given were insufficiently detailed and precise. No detail has been provided as to the nature of the conduct of the applicant that has allegedly ‘involved’ him in ‘crimes’, or how such alleged ‘involvement in crimes’ is in any way connected with both ‘the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds’ and ‘their illegal transfer outside Ukraine’. No detail is provided as to the ‘investigation’, the entity allegedly carrying it out, its nature, or the date upon which it is supposed to have begun. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. These reasons given were insufficiently detailed and precise. No detail has been provided as to the nature of the conduct of the applicant that has allegedly ‘involved’ him in ‘crimes’, or how such alleged ‘involvement in crimes’ is in any way connected with both ‘the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds’ and ‘their illegal transfer outside Ukraine’. No detail is provided as to the ‘investigation’, the entity allegedly carrying it out, its nature, or the date upon which it is supposed to have begun.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were not ‘provided for by law’; they were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council; they are not restricted to any specific property which is said to represent misappropriated state funds or even limited to the amount of funds alleged to have been misappropriated. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were not ‘provided for by law’; they were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council; they are not restricted to any specific property which is said to represent misappropriated state funds or even limited to the amount of funds alleged to have been misappropriated.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council relied on materially inaccurate facts. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant was in fact subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine of the type specified in the Decision and Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council relied on materially inaccurate facts. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant was in fact subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine of the type specified in the Decision and Regulation.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to ensure the relevance and validity of the evidence underlying the listing of the applicant: it failed to consider whether the current Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine had authority under the Constitution of Ukraine to commence any investigation against the applicant and the Council failed to appreciate that the applicant was not in fact subject to the alleged ‘investigation’. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to ensure the relevance and validity of the evidence underlying the listing of the applicant: it failed to consider whether the current Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine had authority under the Constitution of Ukraine to commence any investigation against the applicant and the Council failed to appreciate that the applicant was not in fact subject to the alleged ‘investigation’.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/37

---

Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-346/14)

2014/C 253/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, the applicant, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, the applicant, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time a person subject to criminal proceedings in Ukraine to investigate crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time a person subject to criminal proceedings in Ukraine to investigate crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/39

---

Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-347/14)

2014/C 253/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovych, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovych, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time subject to investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time subject to investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/40

---

Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-348/14)

2014/C 253/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovich, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovich, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time subject to investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time subject to investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/41

---

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex)

(Case T-354/14)

2014/C 253/55

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J. L de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | hold, on the basis of the documents filed in the administrative procedure and those submitted together with the present application, that the applicant has provided sufficient proof of use of its earlier mark ‘JUMEX’ for fruit juices in Class 32; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold, on the basis of the documents filed in the administrative procedure and those submitted together with the present application, that the applicant has provided sufficient proof of use of its earlier mark ‘JUMEX’ for fruit juices in Class 32;

| — | refuse the registration of the mark applied for ‘ZUMEX’ for all goods in Class 32 on account of the opposing party, who is the applicant in the present proceedings, having proved use of the mark with priority, because of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers arising from the coexistence in the market of both marks, given the similarity of the words and their identity in application. |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the registration of the mark applied for ‘ZUMEX’ for all goods in Class 32 on account of the opposing party, who is the applicant in the present proceedings, having proved use of the mark with priority, because of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers arising from the coexistence in the market of both marks, given the similarity of the words and their identity in application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Zumex Group, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘zumex’ for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6 8 45  598

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘JUMEX’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected

Pleas in law:

| — | Proof of use of the earlier mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Proof of use of the earlier mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/42

---

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)

(Case T-356/14)

2014/C 253/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Luis Florido Rodríquez (Sevilla, Spain)

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 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4;

| — | order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark Kerashot for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 69  571

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Luis Florido Rodríquez

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘K KERASOL’ for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the opposition partially upheld

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/43

---

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Experience Hendrix v OHIM — JH Licence (Jimi Hendrix)

(Case T-357/14)

2014/C 253/57

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Experience Hendrix LLC (Tukwila, USA) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister, and P. Gardiner, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: JH Licence GmbH (Pommelsbrunn, Germany)

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 24 March 2014 in Case R 782/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 782/2012-4;

| — | declare that the contested community trade mark is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested community trade mark is invalid;

| — | order that the community trade mark proprietor pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Cancellation Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the community trade mark proprietor pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Cancellation Division;

| — | order that the defendant pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendant pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Jimi Hendrix’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 15 — Community trade mark registration No 4 6 26  685

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: JH Licence GmbH

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Violation of Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The community trade mark was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the request for declaration of invalidity rejected

Pleas in law:

| — | Violation of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Violation of Article 53(2)(a) and Article 78 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of Article 53(2)(a) and Article 78 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Violation of Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/44

---

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)

(Case T-358/14)

2014/C 253/58

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hoteles Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Torrente Tomás and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1227/2013-1 rejecting Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ by HOTELES CATALONIA S.A., which will consequently have to be registered by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1227/2013-1 rejecting Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ by HOTELES CATALONIA S.A., which will consequently have to be registered by OHIM;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hoteles Catalonia, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ for services in Class 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘LA PEDRERA’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/44

---

Action brought on 27 May 2014 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Accelerate (COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE)

(Case T-359/14)

2014/C 253/59

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Accelerate s.a.l. (Beirut, Lebanon)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | alter the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 so that it declares that the conditions for the application of the relative ground for invalidity in Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 2007/2009, or the absolute ground for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 or the ground for invalidity provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006 are satisfied in the present case; and in relation to all the goods and services against which the application for a declaration of invalidity is directed; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 so that it declares that the conditions for the application of the relative ground for invalidity in Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 2007/2009, or the absolute ground for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 or the ground for invalidity provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006 are satisfied in the present case; and in relation to all the goods and services against which the application for a declaration of invalidity is directed;

| — | or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods ‘rice, tapioca, sago; Flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; Honey; treacle; Yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; Vinegar, sauces (condiments); Spices; Ice’ in Class 30 and the ‘Services for providing food and drink; Temporary accommodation’ in Class 43; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods ‘rice, tapioca, sago; Flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; Honey; treacle; Yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; Vinegar, sauces (condiments); Spices; Ice’ in Class 30 and the ‘Services for providing food and drink; Temporary accommodation’ in Class 43;

| — | and, in any event, order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

and, in any event, order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark with word elements ‘COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 30 and 43 — Community trade mark No 4 6 35  553

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Accelerate s.a.l.

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Protected Geographical Indication ‘Café de Colombia’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006;

| — | Breach of a procedural requirement through failure to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of a procedural requirement through failure to state reasons;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/45

---

Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)

(Case T-360/14)

2014/C 253/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

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 17 March 2014 in Case R 1302/2013-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2014 in Case R 1302/2013-4; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark KISS for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 20  565

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark CRISS for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled and the Community trade mark application rejected

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 55(1) 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.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/46

---

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Secolux v Commission

(Case T-363/14)

2014/C 253/61

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)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of 1 and 14 April 2014 by the Secretary General of the European Commission refusing to grant access to all the documents relating to the contract award procedure No 02/2013/01L ‘Safety checks’ for lot 1 and, in particular, the tender of the successful tenderer, the price schedule, the evaluation report of that offer and also the service contract entered into with the contracting authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of 1 and 14 April 2014 by the Secretary General of the European Commission refusing to grant access to all the documents relating to the contract award procedure No 02/2013/01L ‘Safety checks’ for lot 1 and, in particular, the tender of the successful tenderer, the price schedule, the evaluation report of that offer and also the service contract entered into with the contracting authority;

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

—

order European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging failure to respond to the request to be provided with all the documents relating to the contract award procedure, since it responded only to the requests for access relating to the evaluation report, the tender of the successful tenderer, the price schedule, and the service contract entered into with the successful tenderer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging failure to respond to the request to be provided with all the documents relating to the contract award procedure, since it responded only to the requests for access relating to the evaluation report, the tender of the successful tenderer, the price schedule, and the service contract entered into with the successful tenderer.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging breach of the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1).






  — | The refusal to provide access to the documents on the ground that it would undermine the protection of privacy and integrity of the individual within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not constitute a legitimate reason, given that an anonymous version could have been provided. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging breach of the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1).

—

The refusal to provide access to the documents on the ground that it would undermine the protection of privacy and integrity of the individual within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not constitute a legitimate reason, given that an anonymous version could have been provided.

| — | The application of the exception relating to the protection of commercial interests within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not justified, given that the evaluation report and the price schedule do not contain any information relating to technical resources or personnel and do reveal any know-how or technical expertise. |
| --- | --- |

—

The application of the exception relating to the protection of commercial interests within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not justified, given that the evaluation report and the price schedule do not contain any information relating to technical resources or personnel and do reveal any know-how or technical expertise.

| — | The decision-making process is not undermined within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since (i) the award decision had been taken and the service contract had been signed with the successful tenderer when the decision refusing access was taken and (ii) the documents requested did not constitute opinions within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and since, in any event, the disclosure of the documents is not liable to undermine the Commission’s decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision-making process is not undermined within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since (i) the award decision had been taken and the service contract had been signed with the successful tenderer when the decision refusing access was taken and (ii) the documents requested did not constitute opinions within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and since, in any event, the disclosure of the documents is not liable to undermine the Commission’s decision-making process.

| — | There is an overriding public interest, namely, the principle of transparency in the area of the implementation of the budget. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is an overriding public interest, namely, the principle of transparency in the area of the implementation of the budget.

| — | It has not been shown that partial communication of the documents within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 was not possible. |
| --- | --- |

—

It has not been shown that partial communication of the documents within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 was not possible.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging failure to provide a real reason for the decisions taken. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging failure to provide a real reason for the decisions taken.

---

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/47

---

Action brought on 27 May 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE)

(Case T-365/14)

2014/C 253/62

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of April 1, 2014, in Case R 411/2013-5 in so far as the Fifth Board of Appeal annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, upholds the opposition and rejects the Application No 00 9 8 77  416 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25 and in regard of the services ‘Retail services, including via websites and teleshopping, in relation to clothing, footwear, headgear, sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments, leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, bags, handbags, wallets, purses, key cases, rucksacks, pouches, umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks, whips, harness and saddlery’ of class 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of April 1, 2014, in Case R 411/2013-5 in so far as the Fifth Board of Appeal annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, upholds the opposition and rejects the Application No 00 9 8 77  416 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25 and in regard of the services ‘Retail services, including via websites and teleshopping, in relation to clothing, footwear, headgear, sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments, leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, bags, handbags, wallets, purses, key cases, rucksacks, pouches, umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks, whips, harness and saddlery’ of class 35;

| — | Dismiss the opposition against Application No 00 9 8 77  416 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the opposition against Application No 00 9 8 77  416 in its entirety;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRECOLORE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 77  416

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word and figurative mark ‘FRECCE TRICOLORI’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 41

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/48

---

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good)

(Case T-366/14)

2014/C 253/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A. Richter, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, 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 27 February 2014 in case R 996/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in case R 996/2013-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘2good’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 1 1 33  636

Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/49

---

Action brought on 29 May 2014 — Sequoia Capital Operations v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)

(Case T-369/14)

2014/C 253/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: F. Delord and A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

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 March 2014 in Case R 1457/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 March 2014 in Case R 1457/2013-4;

| — | Condemn the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Office and the General Court and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Condemn the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Office and the General Court and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘SEQUOIA CAPITAL’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 7 4 65  347

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Sequoia Capital LLP

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark No 4 1 02  141‘SEQUOIA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The request was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/49

---

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)

(Case T-385/14)

2014/C 253/65

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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1787/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1787/2013-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ULTIMATE for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/50

---

Action brought on 24 May 2014 — Fih Holding and Fih Erhversbank v Commission

(Case T-386/14)

2014/C 253/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fih Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark); and Fih Erhversbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission decision of 11 March 2014 C(2014) 1280 final on State aid SA.34445 (2012/c) implemented by Danemark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission decision of 11 March 2014 C(2014) 1280 final on State aid SA.34445 (2012/c) implemented by Danemark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC; and

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission found ‘that no market economy operator would have been willing to invest on terms and conditions equivalent to those of the share purchase agreement’ (recital 93), that ‘as a result the measures are not in line with the MEOP’ (recital 93 and 99), and in Article 1(1) that the asset transfer constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission found ‘that no market economy operator would have been willing to invest on terms and conditions equivalent to those of the share purchase agreement’ (recital 93), that ‘as a result the measures are not in line with the MEOP’ (recital 93 and 99), and in Article 1(1) that the asset transfer constitute State aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the FSC should not be compared to a private investor guided by the longer-term prospects of profitability of the capital invested, but to a private creditor seeking to obtain payment of sums owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulties, due to the pre-existing liabilities resting upon the FSC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the FSC should not be compared to a private investor guided by the longer-term prospects of profitability of the capital invested, but to a private creditor seeking to obtain payment of sums owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulties, due to the pre-existing liabilities resting upon the FSC.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it finds in recital 116 the gross capital relief effect of the measures to be DKK 375 million, which needed to be remunerated, and the transfer value to be DKK 254 million above the real economic value, which needed to be clawed back, and in the second paragraph of Article 1 and the Term Sheet, commitment 6, makes the approval contingent on this. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it finds in recital 116 the gross capital relief effect of the measures to be DKK 375 million, which needed to be remunerated, and the transfer value to be DKK 254 million above the real economic value, which needed to be clawed back, and in the second paragraph of Article 1 and the Term Sheet, commitment 6, makes the approval contingent on this.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission found in recital 103 (a) ‘a benefit related to the share purchase agreement formula (DKK 0,73 billion)’, and in recital 103 (b) ‘a foregone equity investment remuneration (DKK 1,33 billion)’. Due to this there is no basis for the claim for remuneration of the capital relief demanded by the Commission in the second paragraph of Article 1and commitment No 6. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission found in recital 103 (a) ‘a benefit related to the share purchase agreement formula (DKK 0,73 billion)’, and in recital 103 (b) ‘a foregone equity investment remuneration (DKK 1,33 billion)’. Due to this there is no basis for the claim for remuneration of the capital relief demanded by the Commission in the second paragraph of Article 1and commitment No 6.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misunderstood the terms of the Agreement when the Commission concluded that FIH should repay DKK 254 million to the FSC (recital 116) as the difference between the Transfer Value and the Real Economic Value of the assets. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misunderstood the terms of the Agreement when the Commission concluded that FIH should repay DKK 254 million to the FSC (recital 116) as the difference between the Transfer Value and the Real Economic Value of the assets.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter as the Commission has failed to observe its essential procedural duty to state reasons for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter as the Commission has failed to observe its essential procedural duty to state reasons for its decision.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/51

---

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Duro Felguera v Commission

(Case T-401/14)

2014/C 253/67

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Duro Felguera, SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission.

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

| 1. | By its first plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 107 TFEU in categorising as State aid the STLS and the individual measures of which it is composed. The applicant alleges that the holistic approach taken by the Commission is erroneous, since it confuses a group of private legal transactions carried out by taxable persons in order to optimise their profits with the establishment of an ad hoc mechanism by the tax authorities to generate tax incentives. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By its first plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 107 TFEU in categorising as State aid the STLS and the individual measures of which it is composed. The applicant alleges that the holistic approach taken by the Commission is erroneous, since it confuses a group of private legal transactions carried out by taxable persons in order to optimise their profits with the establishment of an ad hoc mechanism by the tax authorities to generate tax incentives.

| 2. | By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission incorrectly identified the beneficiary of the aid, since the Commission itself acknowledges that the recipient of the aid, or most of it, is the ship owner that acquires the ship, and not the EIG. Although the early depreciation is requested by the EIG and first benefits its members, 90 % of that benefit is passed on to the shipping companies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission incorrectly identified the beneficiary of the aid, since the Commission itself acknowledges that the recipient of the aid, or most of it, is the ship owner that acquires the ship, and not the EIG. Although the early depreciation is requested by the EIG and first benefits its members, 90 % of that benefit is passed on to the shipping companies.

| 3. | By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, in that the Commission categorised the application of the Spanish tonnage tax regime in certain cases as new aid rather than as existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, in that the Commission categorised the application of the Spanish tonnage tax regime in certain cases as new aid rather than as existing aid.

| 4. | By its fourth plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 107 and 296 TFEU, in that the Commission failed to state adequate reasons for its decision to regard the EIGs and their investors as the ultimate and only beneficiaries of the State aid, and thus liable for its recovery. |
| --- | --- |

4.

By its fourth plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 107 and 296 TFEU, in that the Commission failed to state adequate reasons for its decision to regard the EIGs and their investors as the ultimate and only beneficiaries of the State aid, and thus liable for its recovery.

| 5. | By its fifth plea, and in the alternative, the applicant alleges that the recovery of the aid cannot be ordered, since the contested decision infringes the general principles of equal treatment, of proportionality and of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

By its fifth plea, and in the alternative, the applicant alleges that the recovery of the aid cannot be ordered, since the contested decision infringes the general principles of equal treatment, of proportionality and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | In its sixth plea, and in the alternative, the applicant alleges that, in making a determination as to the validity of clauses in private contracts entered into under Spanish law between the investors and other private entities, the contested decision infringed the principle of conferral of powers and Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In its sixth plea, and in the alternative, the applicant alleges that, in making a determination as to the validity of clauses in private contracts entered into under Spanish law between the investors and other private entities, the contested decision infringed the principle of conferral of powers and Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/52

---

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Promoinmo v Commission

(Case T-406/14)

2014/C 253/68

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Promoinmo, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/53

---

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Gres La Sagra v Commission

(Case T-407/14)

2014/C 253/69

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gres La Sagra, SL (Alameda de la Sagra, Toledo, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/53

---

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Venatto Design v Commission

(Case T-408/14)

2014/C 253/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Venatto Design, SL (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/54

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Embutidos Rodríguez v Commission

(Case T-415/14)

2014/C 253/71

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Embutidos Rodríguez, SL (Soto de la Vega, León, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/55

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission

(Case T-416/14)

2014/C 253/72

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grup Maritim TCB, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/55

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Afar 4 v Commission

(Case T-417/14)

2014/C 253/73

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Afar 4, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/56

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos v Commission

(Case T-426/14)

2014/C 253/74

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/56

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Almoauto v Commission

(Case T-427/14)

2014/C 253/75

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Almoauto, SA (Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/57

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Gasiber 2000 v Commission

(Case T-428/14)

2014/C 253/76

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gasiber 2000, SL (Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/57

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Uriinmuebles v Commission

(Case T-429/14)

2014/C 253/77

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Uriinmuebles, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/58

---

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission

(Case T-432/14)

2014/C 253/78

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the benefits that, according to the contested decision, the applicant companies received as members of various Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the benefits that, according to the contested decision, the applicant companies received as members of various Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following factual considerations:

| 1. | The ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) constitutes an integrated whole, in which the various measures that make up that system — in themselves lawful or unlawful according to the Commission’s criteria — are essential to achieving the conclusion of naval construction contracts with Spanish shipyards. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) constitutes an integrated whole, in which the various measures that make up that system — in themselves lawful or unlawful according to the Commission’s criteria — are essential to achieving the conclusion of naval construction contracts with Spanish shipyards.

| 2. | Although the direct benefits characterised as unlawful by the Commission were granted to the participating EIGs, the entire system was conceived of and implemented so as to ensure that those benefits would be passed on to all the participants in the system: shipyards, EIGs, ship owners, organising banks and intermediary companies for various transactions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Although the direct benefits characterised as unlawful by the Commission were granted to the participating EIGs, the entire system was conceived of and implemented so as to ensure that those benefits would be passed on to all the participants in the system: shipyards, EIGs, ship owners, organising banks and intermediary companies for various transactions.

| 3. | The Commission, in its decision, ordered the State to recover the aid unlawfully granted, but only from the EIGs, thus excluding the other participants in the system from the burden of recovery. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission, in its decision, ordered the State to recover the aid unlawfully granted, but only from the EIGs, thus excluding the other participants in the system from the burden of recovery.

| 4. | The Commission failed to state reasons for its decision to exercise the option of recovery, or to explain why the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission failed to state reasons for its decision to exercise the option of recovery, or to explain why the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs.

| 5. | The decision that the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs was made for reasons different from those justifying the granting to the Commission of the power to order such recovery. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The decision that the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs was made for reasons different from those justifying the granting to the Commission of the power to order such recovery.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/58

---

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Superficies de Alimentación v Commission

(Case T-433/14)

2014/C 253/79

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Superficies de Alimentación, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/59

---

Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council

(Case T-435/14)

2014/C 253/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tose’e Ta’avon Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014;

| — | declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable to it; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable to it;

| — | declare that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 is inapplicable to it; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 is inapplicable to it;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging an error of law, in so far as the reason given for the maintenance of restrictive measures against the applicant is not among those which would allow the defendant to adopt restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging an error of law, in so far as the reason given for the maintenance of restrictive measures against the applicant is not among those which would allow the defendant to adopt restrictive measures.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging an error of fact constituting a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant is not managed by the Iranian state and does not provide financial support for the Iranian government. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging an error of fact constituting a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant is not managed by the Iranian state and does not provide financial support for the Iranian government.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the right to property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the right to property.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging illegality of Regulation No 267/2012 (1) and Decision 2010/413 (2), pursuant to which the contested decision was taken in so far as, on the one hand, they were taken in violation of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, on the other hand, their relevant provisions on the basis of which the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant were maintained violate the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging illegality of Regulation No 267/2012 (1) and Decision 2010/413 (2), pursuant to which the contested decision was taken in so far as, on the one hand, they were taken in violation of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, on the other hand, their relevant provisions on the basis of which the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant were maintained violate the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  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).

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

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/60

---

Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Neka Novin v Council

(Case T-436/14)

2014/C 253/81

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Neka Novin (Yusef Abad, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging an error of law in so far as the grounds given for maintaining the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are not sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging an error of law in so far as the grounds given for maintaining the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are not sufficient.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the defendant wrongly considered that the applicant had acquired specialised equipment that was of direct application in the Iranian nuclear program. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the defendant wrongly considered that the applicant had acquired specialised equipment that was of direct application in the Iranian nuclear program.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of proportionality and the right to property. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of proportionality and the right to property.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/60

---

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission

(Case T-442/14)

2014/C 253/82

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Metalúrgica Galaica, SA (Narón, A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/61

---

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG v Commission

(Case T-443/14)

2014/C 253/83

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/62

---

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-452/14)

2014/C 253/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and

| — | order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the marketing authorisation holder of the orphan medicinal product Orphacol, which is authorised for the treatment of two very rare and serious genetic liver disorders and whose active ingredient is cholic acid. Orphacol benefits as of 16 September 2013 from a 10-year period of market exclusivity in respect of these two indications in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 141/2000 (1).

By the contested decision dated 4 April 2014, the Commission granted a marketing authorisation for another orphan medicinal product (Cholic Acid FGK) with cholic acid as the active ingredient. Although Cholic Acid FGK was authorised for three other therapeutic indications than those for which Orphacol was authorised, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report for Cholic Acid FGK, which according to the applicant form an integral part of the contested decision, contained extensive references to the efficacy as well as references to the safety of Cholic Acid FGK in the therapeutic indications for which Orphacol was authorised.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000, as the Commission has, by granting a marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK on the terms set out in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report, circumvented the applicant’s market exclusivity, since the terms upon which the marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK was granted imply, in substance, that Cholic Acid FGK is also authorised for the two therapeutic indications for which Orphacol is authorised.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/63

---

Action brought on 20 June 2014 — Arocasa v Commission

(Case T-461/14)

2014/C 253/85

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Arocasa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/63

---

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Vego Supermercados v Commission

(Case T-465/14)

2014/C 253/86

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vego Supermercados, SA (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/64

---

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission

(Case T-467/14)

2014/C 253/87

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fonditel Pensiones, Entidad Gestora de Fondos de Pensiones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/64

---

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Dordal v Commission

(Case T-469/14)

2014/C 253/88

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Dordal, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/65

---

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Kendrion v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-479/14)

2014/C 253/89

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kendrion NV (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener and T. Ottervanger, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that General Court should order the European Union:

| — | in respect of material damage, to pay a sum of EUR 2 3 08  463 .98, or such sum that the Court considers can be reasonably granted, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of material damage, to pay a sum of EUR 2 3 08  463 .98, or such sum that the Court considers can be reasonably granted, and

| — | in respect of non-material damage, to pay a sum of EUR 1 1 0 50  000 .00 and alternatively, to pay a sum of EUR 1 7 00  000 .00 and, in the further alternative, to pay a sum determined by the parties on the basis of modalities set by the Court, or such sum which the Court considers reasonable, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of non-material damage, to pay a sum of EUR 1 1 0 50  000 .00 and alternatively, to pay a sum of EUR 1 7 00  000 .00 and, in the further alternative, to pay a sum determined by the parties on the basis of modalities set by the Court, or such sum which the Court considers reasonable, and

| — | to pay each amount increased, from 26 November 2013, by a reasonable rate of late payment interest fixed by the Court, and |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay each amount increased, from 26 November 2013, by a reasonable rate of late payment interest fixed by the Court, and

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

—

to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 26 November 2013, Kendrion v Commission (C-50/12 P, EU:C:2013:771), the Court of Justice found a breach of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-54/06 Kendrion v Commission, concerning an application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in so far as it is addressed to the applicant, and application for annulment or, alternatively, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

The Court of Justice also ruled that the sanction for a breach of the obligation under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be an action for damages before the General Court, since such an action constitutes an effective remedy.

The applicant submits that the Court of Justice has already ruled in that judgment that the conditions for a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law that is intended to confer rights on individuals have been met.

The applicant also submits that the proceedings have now taken 5 years and 9 months; while, in its view, a period of 2 years and 6 months may be deemed reasonable, the reasonable period has been exceeded by 3 years and 3 months. For resolution within a reasonable period, therefore, a judgment would have had to be delivered by 26 August 2010 instead of on 26 November 2013.

The material damage, which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the excessively long proceedings, would then consist of the additional financial expenses that the applicant has had to bear for the period concerned. That damage consists of interest calculated by the Commission on the amount of the fine of EUR 3 4 0 00  000 over the period concerned, with the costs, for the same period, of the bank guarantee lodged for payment of the fine with interest. That amount is less the costs linked to financing the payment to the European Union of the fine due on 26 August 2010, with interest, if the General Court had delivered a judgment by that date.

As compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the excessively long proceedings, the applicant claims fair compensation equating to 10 % of the fine for each year, with a proportion of 10 % for a corresponding part of the year, that the proceedings before the General Court have exceeded a reasonable period. Such compensation is, in the applicant’s view, appropriate, given that an amount at the level of 10 % at the time of the Commission’s decision was the norm for penalty increases for each year that the infringement continued.

In the alternative, the applicant claims fair compensation for the non-material damage equal to 5 % of the fine. That amount, it maintains, is in line with the compensation deemed appropriate by the Court of Justice in comparable situations of time-limits having been seriously exceeded in the assessment of cartel fines.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/66

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

(Cases T-433/11 and T-98/12) (1)

2014/C 253/90

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/66

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Othman v Council

(Case T-109/13) (1)

2014/C 253/91

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/66

---

Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

(Case T-477/13) (1)

2014/C 253/92

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/67

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — BN v Parliament

(Case F-24/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Action for annulment - Official of grade AD 14 occupying a post as Head of Unit - Allegation of psychological harassment against the Director-General - Mobility exercise - Refusal to accept appointment to a post of Advisor in another Directorate-General with the loss of the salary increase for Heads of Unit - Decision on a temporary transfer to another Advisor post - Interest of the service - Principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade - Action for compensation - Harm arising from non-decision-making conduct))

2014/C 253/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BN (represented initially by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Blot, and subsequently by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and J.F. de Wachter, and subsequently by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and V. Montebello-Demogeot)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision adopted by the President of the European Parliament reassigning the applicant within the same Directorate-General of the Parliament from the post of Head of Unit to a post of Advisor to the Director of a Directorate and the claim for compensation for psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear all of its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by BN. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear all of its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by BN.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 36.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/67

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer v Europol

(Case F-119/12) (1)

((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/94

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Stephanie Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and for Europol to be ordered to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other compensation that she actually received

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Sumberaz Sotte-Wedemeijer is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 379 of 08/12/2012, p. 36.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/68

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Coutureau v Europol

(Case F-120/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed–term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/95

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christèle Coutureau (Rijswijk, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Ms Coutureau to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8/8/2012, p. 36.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Maynard v Europol

(Case F-121/12) (1)

((Civil service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ginny Maynard (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann ad D. El Khoury, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Ms Maynard to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8/12/2012, p. 36.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Molina Solano v Europol

(Case F-66/13) (1)

((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by J. Arnould and D. Neumann, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 21/09/2013, p. 30.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Rihn v Europol

(Case F-67/13) (1)

((Civil service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/98

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Rihn (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, J. Arnould and D. Neumann, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Rihn to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Rihn to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 31.

---

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/70

---

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-56/14)

2014/C 253/99

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the two proposed calculations of the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which apply the new GIPs on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of 20 September 2013 making two proposed calculations of annuities to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union concerning application No 1 A112-BE-ONP and application No 2 BE-CPIE-1 (former reference), confirmed by the rejection decision of the Appointing Authority sent on 20 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of 20 September 2013 making two proposed calculations of annuities to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union concerning application No 1 A112-BE-ONP and application No 2 BE-CPIE-1 (former reference), confirmed by the rejection decision of the Appointing Authority sent on 20 March 2014;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---