# Official Journal C 96/23 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 96 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5823 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 96

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5823 March 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2015/C 096/01 | 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

2015/C 096/01

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 |
| 2015/C 096/02 | Case C-420/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2014 by Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2014 in Case T-239/12 Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 2 |
| 2015/C 096/03 | Case C-580/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014 — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany | 2 |
| 2015/C 096/04 | Case C-583/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság | 3 |
| 2015/C 096/05 | Case C-596/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa | 3 |
| 2015/C 096/06 | Case C-598/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2014 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-453/11 Szajner v OHIM | 4 |
| 2015/C 096/07 | Case C-613/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 30 December 2014 — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited | 5 |
| 2015/C 096/08 | Case C-614/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov | 6 |
| 2015/C 096/09 | Case C-14/15: Action brought on 14 January 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union | 7 |
| 2015/C 096/10 | Case C-16/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 19 January 2015 — María Elena Pérez López v Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid) | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 096/11 | Case T-570/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (representing a wolf’s head) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 10 |
| 2015/C 096/12 | Case T-204/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Spain v Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 — Methods for the detection of lipophilic toxins in bivalve molluscs — Replacement of the mouse bioassay method by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method — Article 168 TFEU — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations) | 11 |
| 2015/C 096/13 | Case T-387/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Tomato processing sector — Aid to producer organisations — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Flat-rate correction) | 11 |
| 2015/C 096/14 | Case T-395/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional’s choice) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Solidfloor The professional’s choice — Earlier national figurative mark SOLID floor, earlier trade name and domain name Solid Floor Ltd — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 12 |
| 2015/C 096/15 | Case T-473/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons) | 12 |
| 2015/C 096/16 | Case T-500/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons) | 13 |
| 2015/C 096/17 | Case T-33/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS v OHIM — Card & Finance Consulting (bonus & more) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark bonus & more — Earlier international figurative mark bonus net — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2015/C 096/18 | Case T-78/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BULLDOG — Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical nature of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Conceptual similarity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 15 |
| 2015/C 096/19 | Case T-368/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ANGIPAX — Earlier Community word mark ANTISTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 16 |
| 2015/C 096/20 | Case T-379/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Innovation First v OHIM (NANO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark NANO — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 16 |
| 2015/C 096/21 | Case T-499/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — nMetric LLC v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 17 |
| 2015/C 096/22 | Case T-648/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GLISTEN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 18 |
| 2015/C 096/23 | Case T-7/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — BQ v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Staff report — Psychological harassment — Dismissal in part of the action for compensation at first instance — Distortion of the facts — Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons — Proportionality — Allocation of costs) | 18 |
| 2015/C 096/24 | Case T-85/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DINKOOL — Earlier international figurative mark DIN — Earlier national business identifier DIN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 19 |
| 2015/C 096/25 | Case T-396/13: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2015 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 20 |
| 2015/C 096/26 | Case T-338/14: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — UNIC v Commission (Action for annulment — Joint actions to promote sustainable development economically, socially and environmentally in developing countries — Generalised tariff preferences granted to treated and partly treated leather originating from India, Pakistan and Ethiopia — Rejection of the application for a temporary withdrawal of the benefit of generalised preferences — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility) | 20 |
| 2015/C 096/27 | Case T-827/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission | 21 |
| 2015/C 096/28 | Case T-830/14: Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council | 22 |
| 2015/C 096/29 | Case T-45/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission | 23 |
| 2015/C 096/30 | Case T-248/12: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — Fuhr v Commission | 24 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 096/31 | Case F-2/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 25 |
| 2015/C 096/32 | Case F-3/15: Action brought on 9 January 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission | 25 |
| 2015/C 096/33 | Case F-4/15: Action brought on 12 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission | 26 |
| 2015/C 096/34 | Case F-5/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission | 26 |
| 2015/C 096/35 | Case F-16/15: Action brought on 30 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission | 27 |
| 2015/C 096/36 | Case F-18/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission | 28 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 096/02

Case C-420/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2014 by Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2014 in Case T-239/12 Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd

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

2

2015/C 096/03

Case C-580/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014 — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

2

2015/C 096/04

Case C-583/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

3

2015/C 096/05

Case C-596/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa

3

2015/C 096/06

Case C-598/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2014 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-453/11 Szajner v OHIM

4

2015/C 096/07

Case C-613/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 30 December 2014 — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited

5

2015/C 096/08

Case C-614/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

6

2015/C 096/09

Case C-14/15: Action brought on 14 January 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

7

2015/C 096/10

Case C-16/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 19 January 2015 — María Elena Pérez López v Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

8

General Court

2015/C 096/11

Case T-570/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (representing a wolf’s head) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

representing a wolf’s head

10

2015/C 096/12

Case T-204/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Spain v Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 — Methods for the detection of lipophilic toxins in bivalve molluscs — Replacement of the mouse bioassay method by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method — Article 168 TFEU — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations)

11

2015/C 096/13

Case T-387/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Tomato processing sector — Aid to producer organisations — Expenditure incurred by Italy — Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Flat-rate correction)

11

2015/C 096/14

Case T-395/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional’s choice) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Solidfloor The professional’s choice — Earlier national figurative mark SOLID floor, earlier trade name and domain name Solid Floor Ltd — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

12

2015/C 096/15

Case T-473/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

12

2015/C 096/16

Case T-500/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

13

2015/C 096/17

Case T-33/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS v OHIM — Card & Finance Consulting (bonus & more) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark bonus & more — Earlier international figurative mark bonus net — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2015/C 096/18

Case T-78/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BULLDOG — Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical nature of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Conceptual similarity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

15

2015/C 096/19

Case T-368/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ANGIPAX — Earlier Community word mark ANTISTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

16

2015/C 096/20

Case T-379/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Innovation First v OHIM (NANO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark NANO — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

16

2015/C 096/21

Case T-499/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — nMetric LLC v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

17

2015/C 096/22

Case T-648/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GLISTEN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

18

2015/C 096/23

Case T-7/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — BQ v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Staff report — Psychological harassment — Dismissal in part of the action for compensation at first instance — Distortion of the facts — Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons — Proportionality — Allocation of costs)

18

2015/C 096/24

Case T-85/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DINKOOL — Earlier international figurative mark DIN — Earlier national business identifier DIN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

19

2015/C 096/25

Case T-396/13: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2015 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

20

2015/C 096/26

Case T-338/14: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — UNIC v Commission (Action for annulment — Joint actions to promote sustainable development economically, socially and environmentally in developing countries — Generalised tariff preferences granted to treated and partly treated leather originating from India, Pakistan and Ethiopia — Rejection of the application for a temporary withdrawal of the benefit of generalised preferences — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

20

2015/C 096/27

Case T-827/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

21

2015/C 096/28

Case T-830/14: Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council

22

2015/C 096/29

Case T-45/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission

23

2015/C 096/30

Case T-248/12: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — Fuhr v Commission

24

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 096/31

Case F-2/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

25

2015/C 096/32

Case F-3/15: Action brought on 9 January 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

25

2015/C 096/33

Case F-4/15: Action brought on 12 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

26

2015/C 096/34

Case F-5/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

26

2015/C 096/35

Case F-16/15: Action brought on 30 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

27

2015/C 096/36

Case F-18/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

28

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/1

---

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

(2015/C 096/01)

Last publication

OJ C 89, 16.3.2015

Past publications

OJ C 81, 9.3.2015

OJ C 73, 2.3.2015

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015

OJ C 56, 16.2.2015

OJ C 46, 9.2.2015

OJ C 34, 2.2.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/2

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2014 by Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2014 in Case T-239/12 Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-420/14 P)

(2015/C 096/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), DeguDent GmbH

By order of 5 February 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided to order the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014 — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-580/14)

(2015/C 096/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Does the second sentence of Article 16(3) [of Directive 2003/87/EC] (1), according to which the excess emissions penalty shall be EUR 100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted for which the operator or aircraft operator has not surrendered allowances, infringe the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-583/14)

(2015/C 096/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benjámin Dávid Nagy

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?

| 2. | Should Article 20(2)(a) TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 20(2)(a) TFEU be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as that figuring in the main proceedings according to which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the authorities of that Member State may be used on the roads in the Member State, and a person resident in the Member State who is not a worker within the meaning of EU law and who seeks exemption from that provision on the grounds that he is using a vehicle made available to him by an undertaking established in another Member State is required to prove on the spot the lawfulness of its use under the law of the Member State concerned, during a police inspection, on pain of an immediate fine from which no exemption is possible, the amount of which is equivalent to the fine that may be imposed for failure to register the vehicle?

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa

(Case C-596/14)

(2015/C 096/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ana de Diego Porras

Defendant: Ministerio de Defensa

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the compensation due on termination of a temporary contract covered by the employment conditions to which Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP refers (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the compensation due on termination of a temporary contract covered by the employment conditions to which Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP refers (1)?

| 2. | If such compensation is covered by the employment conditions, must workers with an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions, such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or service, or the occurrence of a specific event, receive, on termination of the contract, the same compensation as that to which a comparable permanent worker is entitled when his contract is terminated for objective reasons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If such compensation is covered by the employment conditions, must workers with an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions, such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or service, or the occurrence of a specific event, receive, on termination of the contract, the same compensation as that to which a comparable permanent worker is entitled when his contract is terminated for objective reasons?

| 3. | If a temporary worker is entitled to receive the same compensation as a permanent worker on termination of the contract for objective reasons, must Article 49(1)(c) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as having correctly transposed Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, or is it discriminatory and contrary to that directive in that it undermines its purpose and its effectiveness? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If a temporary worker is entitled to receive the same compensation as a permanent worker on termination of the contract for objective reasons, must Article 49(1)(c) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as having correctly transposed Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, or is it discriminatory and contrary to that directive in that it undermines its purpose and its effectiveness?

| 4. | If there are no objective reasons for excluding temporary replacement workers from the entitlement to receive compensation on termination of a temporary contract, is the distinction which the Worker’s Statute establishes between the employment conditions of those workers discriminatory, compared not only with the conditions of permanent workers but also with those of other temporary workers? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If there are no objective reasons for excluding temporary replacement workers from the entitlement to receive compensation on termination of a temporary contract, is the distinction which the Worker’s Statute establishes between the employment conditions of those workers discriminatory, compared not only with the conditions of permanent workers but also with those of other temporary workers?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Appeal brought on 22 December 2014 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-453/11 Szajner v OHIM

(Case C-598/14 P)

(2015/C 096/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forwards to grounds in support of its appeal, namely, the infringement of Article 65 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) and the infringement of Article 8(4) of that regulation read in conjunction with Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

According to the appellant, the General Court may annul or amend the decision only where, at the time it was adopted, it was vitiated by one of the grounds for annulment or amendment set out in Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. The General Court infringed Article 65(2) of that regulation by misconstruing the scope of its review of legality, which must be restricted to matters of law (including the case-law existing at the time when the decision was adopted) and of fact put forward before the Board of Appeal. The General Court failed to establish that the Board of Appeal had committed an error at the time when the contested decision was adopted. The General Court substituted its own assessment for that of the Board of Appeal and carried out an assessment of the judgment of the French Court of Cassation of 10 July 2012 about which that Board was unable to take a position.

Furthermore, the General Court distorted the judgment of the French Court of Cassation of 10 July 2012 by declaring that it was ‘devoid of any ambiguity regarding the scope of protection afforded to a company name and which may be applied generally’ and by granting it a scope that it clearly did not have in relation to the other documents in the file, in the context of Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Finally, the General Court committed an error by assessing the areas of activity of Forge de Laguiole in the light of the criteria of trade mark law. The General Court should have assessed the areas of activity of Forge de Laguiole with reference to the purpose and use of the goods sold by that company, and not only in the light of the criterion of the nature of the product.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 30 December 2014 — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited

(Case C-613/14)

(2015/C 096/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: James Elliott Construction Limited

Defendant: Irish Asphalt Limited

Questions referred

| 1 | (a) | Where the terms of a private contract oblige a party to supply a product produced in accordance with a national standard, itself adopted in implementation of a European standard made pursuant to a mandate issued by the European Commission under the provisions of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC) (1), is the interpretation of the said Standard a matter upon which a preliminary ruling may be sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1

(a)

Where the terms of a private contract oblige a party to supply a product produced in accordance with a national standard, itself adopted in implementation of a European standard made pursuant to a mandate issued by the European Commission under the provisions of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC) (1), is the interpretation of the said Standard a matter upon which a preliminary ruling may be sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU?

| (b) | If the answer to question 1(a) is yes, does EN13242:2002 require that compliance, or breach of the said Standard, be established only by evidence of testing in accordance with the (unmandated) standards adopted by CEN (Le Comité Européen de Normalisation) and referred to in EN13242:2002, and where such tests are carried out at the time of production and/or supply; or may breach of the Standard (and accordingly breach of contract), be established by evidence of tests conducted later, if the results of such tests are logically probative of breach of the Standard? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the answer to question 1(a) is yes, does EN13242:2002 require that compliance, or breach of the said Standard, be established only by evidence of testing in accordance with the (unmandated) standards adopted by CEN (Le Comité Européen de Normalisation) and referred to in EN13242:2002, and where such tests are carried out at the time of production and/or supply; or may breach of the Standard (and accordingly breach of contract), be established by evidence of tests conducted later, if the results of such tests are logically probative of breach of the Standard?

| 2 | When hearing a private-law claim for breach of contract in respect of a product manufactured pursuant to a European standard issued pursuant to a mandate from the European Commission under the Construction Products Directive, is a national court obliged to disapply the provisions of national law implying terms as to merchantability and fitness for purpose or quality, on the grounds that either the statutory terms, or their application, create standards or impose technical specifications or requirements which have not been notified in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Standards Directive (98/34/EC) (2)? |
| --- | --- |

2

When hearing a private-law claim for breach of contract in respect of a product manufactured pursuant to a European standard issued pursuant to a mandate from the European Commission under the Construction Products Directive, is a national court obliged to disapply the provisions of national law implying terms as to merchantability and fitness for purpose or quality, on the grounds that either the statutory terms, or their application, create standards or impose technical specifications or requirements which have not been notified in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Standards Directive (98/34/EC) (2)?

| 3 | Is a national court hearing a claim for breach of a private contract alleged to arise from a breach of a term as to merchantability or fitness for use (implied by statute in a contract between the parties and not modified or disapplied by them) in respect of a product produced in accordance with EN13242:2002, obliged to presume that the product is of merchantable quality and fit for its purpose, and if so, may such a presumption only be rebutted by proof of non-compliance with EN13242:2002 by tests carried out in accordance with the tests and protocols referred to in EN13242:2002 and carried out at the time of supply of the product? |
| --- | --- |

3

Is a national court hearing a claim for breach of a private contract alleged to arise from a breach of a term as to merchantability or fitness for use (implied by statute in a contract between the parties and not modified or disapplied by them) in respect of a product produced in accordance with EN13242:2002, obliged to presume that the product is of merchantable quality and fit for its purpose, and if so, may such a presumption only be rebutted by proof of non-compliance with EN13242:2002 by tests carried out in accordance with the tests and protocols referred to in EN13242:2002 and carried out at the time of supply of the product?

| 4 | If the answers to questions 1(a) and 3 are both yes, is a limit for total sulphur content of aggregates prescribed by, or under, EN13242:2002 so that compliance with such a limit was required, inter alia, to give rise to any presumption of merchantability or fitness for use? |
| --- | --- |

4

If the answers to questions 1(a) and 3 are both yes, is a limit for total sulphur content of aggregates prescribed by, or under, EN13242:2002 so that compliance with such a limit was required, inter alia, to give rise to any presumption of merchantability or fitness for use?

| 5 | If the answers to 1(a) and 3 are both yes, is proof that the product bore the ‘CE’ marking necessary in order to rely on the presumption created by Annex ZA to EN13242:2002 and/or Article 4 of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC)? |
| --- | --- |

5

If the answers to 1(a) and 3 are both yes, is proof that the product bore the ‘CE’ marking necessary in order to rely on the presumption created by Annex ZA to EN13242:2002 and/or Article 4 of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC)?

---

(1)  Council Directive (89/106/EEC) of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, OJ L 40, p. 12.

(2)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, p. 37.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

(Case C-614/14)

(2015/C 096/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Sentenced person: Atanas Ognyanov

Other party to the proceedings: Sofyiska gradska prokuratura

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it constitute an infringement of EU law (second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or other applicable provisions) if the court which submitted the request for a preliminary ruling allows the proceedings to continue before it after delivery of the preliminary ruling and delivers a decision on the merits of the case without disqualifying itself, a ground for such disqualification being that the court had expressed a preliminary view on the merits of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling (in that it considered certain facts to have been established and a certain legal provision to be applicable to those facts)?
  The question is referred on the assumption that all procedural provisions protecting the parties’ rights to adduce evidence and to make submissions were complied with in the determination of the facts and applicable law for the purposes of submitting the request for a preliminary ruling. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute an infringement of EU law (second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or other applicable provisions) if the court which submitted the request for a preliminary ruling allows the proceedings to continue before it after delivery of the preliminary ruling and delivers a decision on the merits of the case without disqualifying itself, a ground for such disqualification being that the court had expressed a preliminary view on the merits of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling (in that it considered certain facts to have been established and a certain legal provision to be applicable to those facts)?

The question is referred on the assumption that all procedural provisions protecting the parties’ rights to adduce evidence and to make submissions were complied with in the determination of the facts and applicable law for the purposes of submitting the request for a preliminary ruling.

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is that it is lawful for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, does it constitute an infringement of EU law if:






  A) | the court reproduces in its final decision, without amendment, all the findings set out in its request for a preliminary ruling and declines to take new evidence or to hear the parties in relation to those factual and legal outcomes (with the court, in practice, taking new evidence and hearing the parties only in respect of matters not regarded as having been established in the request for a preliminary ruling)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is that it is lawful for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, does it constitute an infringement of EU law if:

A)

the court reproduces in its final decision, without amendment, all the findings set out in its request for a preliminary ruling and declines to take new evidence or to hear the parties in relation to those factual and legal outcomes (with the court, in practice, taking new evidence and hearing the parties only in respect of matters not regarded as having been established in the request for a preliminary ruling)?

| B) | the court takes new evidence and hears the parties on all relevant issues, including those on which it has already stated its view in the request for a preliminary ruling, and sets out its view in its final decision on the basis of all the evidence adduced and after examining all the parties’ arguments, irrespective of whether the evidence was adduced before submission of the request for a preliminary ruling or after delivery of the preliminary ruling, and of whether the arguments were put forward beforehand or afterwards? |
| --- | --- |

B)

the court takes new evidence and hears the parties on all relevant issues, including those on which it has already stated its view in the request for a preliminary ruling, and sets out its view in its final decision on the basis of all the evidence adduced and after examining all the parties’ arguments, irrespective of whether the evidence was adduced before submission of the request for a preliminary ruling or after delivery of the preliminary ruling, and of whether the arguments were put forward beforehand or afterwards?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is that it is compatible with EU law for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, is it compatible with EU law if the court decides not to allow the main proceedings to continue before it and to disqualify itself from the case on the ground of bias, it being contrary to national law (which offers a higher level of protection in respect of the interests of the parties and of justice) for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, and where such disqualification is based on the fact that:






  А) | before delivering its final decision, the court had expressed a preliminary view on the proceedings in the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, which is permissible under EU law but not under national law; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is that it is compatible with EU law for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, is it compatible with EU law if the court decides not to allow the main proceedings to continue before it and to disqualify itself from the case on the ground of bias, it being contrary to national law (which offers a higher level of protection in respect of the interests of the parties and of justice) for the proceedings to be allowed to continue, and where such disqualification is based on the fact that:

А)

before delivering its final decision, the court had expressed a preliminary view on the proceedings in the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, which is permissible under EU law but not under national law;

| B) | the court’s final view would be set out in two legal acts instead of one (on the assumption that the request for a preliminary ruling constitutes a final, rather than a preliminary, view), which is permissible under EU law but not under national law? |
| --- | --- |

B)

the court’s final view would be set out in two legal acts instead of one (on the assumption that the request for a preliminary ruling constitutes a final, rather than a preliminary, view), which is permissible under EU law but not under national law?

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/7

---

Action brought on 14 January 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-14/15)

(2015/C 096/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/731/EU of 9 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Malta (1), Council Decision 2014/743/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Cyprus (2), and Council Decision 2014/744/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Estonia (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/731/EU of 9 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Malta (1), Council Decision 2014/743/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Cyprus (2), and Council Decision 2014/744/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Estonia (3);

| — | order Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Parliament invokes two pleas in law alleging infringement of the Treaties, first, and infringement of an essential procedural requirement, secondly, in support of its action for annulment.

In the first place, the Parliament considers that the Council used an inappropriate legal basis in order to adopt the contested decisions.

In the second place, the Parliament complains that the Council used a decision-making procedure which is legally incorrect.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 302, p. 56.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 100.

(3)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 102.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 19 January 2015 — María Elena Pérez López v Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

(Case C-16/15)

(2015/C 096/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Elena Pérez López

Defendant: Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 9.3 of State Law 55/2003 of 16 December on the framework regulations for health service staff regulated under administrative law (‘regulated staff’) infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it encourages abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of ‘occasional’ (eventual) regulated staff, in that it:






  — | does not fix a maximum total duration of successive appointments of occasional regulated staff, nor a maximum number of renewals of those appointments; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 9.3 of State Law 55/2003 of 16 December on the framework regulations for health service staff regulated under administrative law (‘regulated staff’) infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it encourages abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of ‘occasional’ (eventual) regulated staff, in that it:

—

does not fix a maximum total duration of successive appointments of occasional regulated staff, nor a maximum number of renewals of those appointments;

| — | leaves to the discretion of the authorities the decision whether to create permanent posts where more than two appointments are made for the provision of the same services for a total period of 12 months or more in a period of two years; and |
| --- | --- |

—

leaves to the discretion of the authorities the decision whether to create permanent posts where more than two appointments are made for the provision of the same services for a total period of 12 months or more in a period of two years; and

| — | allows appointments of occasional regulated staff to be made without requiring that the notices of appointment indicate the specific objective reasons of a temporary, occasional or extraordinary nature justifying those appointments? |
| --- | --- |

—

allows appointments of occasional regulated staff to be made without requiring that the notices of appointment indicate the specific objective reasons of a temporary, occasional or extraordinary nature justifying those appointments?

| 2. | Does Article 11.7 of the Order of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance of the Community of Madrid of 28 January 2013 infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it provides that ‘at the end of the appointment period, termination of service and payment of all outstanding remuneration corresponding to the period of services provided must be carried out in all cases, including those in which the person concerned is subsequently to be reappointed’, irrespective, therefore, of whether or not the specific, objective reasons justifying the appointment have come to an end, as required under Clause 3.1 of the Framework Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 11.7 of the Order of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance of the Community of Madrid of 28 January 2013 infringe the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and is it therefore inapplicable, because it provides that ‘at the end of the appointment period, termination of service and payment of all outstanding remuneration corresponding to the period of services provided must be carried out in all cases, including those in which the person concerned is subsequently to be reappointed’, irrespective, therefore, of whether or not the specific, objective reasons justifying the appointment have come to an end, as required under Clause 3.1 of the Framework Agreement?

| 3. | Is it in accordance with the intended purpose of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 for the third subparagraph of Article 9.3 of State Law 55/2003 of 16 December on the framework regulations for health service staff regulated under administrative law to be interpreted to the effect that, if more than two appointments are made for the provision of the same services for a total period of 12 months or more in a period of two years, a permanent post must be created in the heath-care institution, so that the worker appointed on an occasional basis becomes appointed to cover that post on an interim basis? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it in accordance with the intended purpose of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 for the third subparagraph of Article 9.3 of State Law 55/2003 of 16 December on the framework regulations for health service staff regulated under administrative law to be interpreted to the effect that, if more than two appointments are made for the provision of the same services for a total period of 12 months or more in a period of two years, a permanent post must be created in the heath-care institution, so that the worker appointed on an occasional basis becomes appointed to cover that post on an interim basis?

| 4. | Is the application to occasional regulated staff of the same severance pay provided for in the case of workers with occasional employment contracts, given that the two situations are substantially identical, in accordance with the intended purpose of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, since it would not make sense for workers of the same type, providing services in the same entity (the Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Madrid Health Service)), carrying out the same tasks and meeting the same temporary needs to be treated differently upon the termination of their employment, in the absence of any apparent reason that would prevent comparisons being made between fixed-term relationships in order to avoid discriminatory situations? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the application to occasional regulated staff of the same severance pay provided for in the case of workers with occasional employment contracts, given that the two situations are substantially identical, in accordance with the intended purpose of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, since it would not make sense for workers of the same type, providing services in the same entity (the Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Madrid Health Service)), carrying out the same tasks and meeting the same temporary needs to be treated differently upon the termination of their employment, in the absence of any apparent reason that would prevent comparisons being made between fixed-term relationships in order to avoid discriminatory situations?

---

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

---

General Court

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (representing a wolf’s head)

(Case T-570/10 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Atkins, Solicitor)

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, intervener before the General Court, being: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, avocat)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing LLP before the General Court and the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing LLP before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

| 3. | Orders Société Elmar Wolf to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Société Elmar Wolf to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-204/11) (1)

((Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 - Methods for the detection of lipophilic toxins in bivalve molluscs - Replacement of the mouse bioassay method by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method - Article 168 TFEU - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 096/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently S. Martínez-Lage Sobredo and lastly A. Rubio González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and A. Marcoulli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 of 10 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards recognised testing methods for detecting marine biotoxins in live bivalve molluscs (OJ 2011 L 6, p. 3).

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 incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-387/12) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Tomato processing sector - Aid to producer organisations - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Flat-rate correction))

(2015/C 096/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Italy (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Bianchi, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of the Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20/10/12.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional’s choice)

(Case T-395/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Solidfloor The professional’s choice - Earlier national figurative mark SOLID floor, earlier trade name and domain name Solid Floor Ltd - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fetim BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Solid Floor Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2012 (Case R 884/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Solid Floor Ltd and Fetim BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fetim BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fetim BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission

(Case T-473/12) (1)

((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 096/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Aer Lingus Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Aer Lingus Ltd;

| 4. | Orders Aer Lingus to pay half of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Aer Lingus to pay half of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders Ireland to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Ireland to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-500/12) (1)

((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 096/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan, SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Ryanair Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Ryanair Ltd;

| 4. | Orders Ryanair to pay half of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ryanair to pay half of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders Aer Lingus Ltd and Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Aer Lingus Ltd and Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS v OHIM — Card & Finance Consulting (bonus & more)

(Case T-33/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark bonus & more - Earlier international figurative mark bonus net - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Card & Finance Consulting GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2012 (Case R-1890/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS and Card & Finance Consulting GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 November 2012 (Case R 1890/2011-4). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 November 2012 (Case R 1890/2011-4).

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)

(Case T-78/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BULLDOG - Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical nature of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Conceptual similarity - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented: initially by A. Renck, T. Heitmann, lawyers, and I. Fowler, Solicitor, and subsequently by A. Renck and I. Fowler)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, subsequently by P. Bullock and A. Schifko, acting as Agents, subsequently by D. Walicka and finally by M. Schifko)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sun Mark Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd;

| 2. | Declares inadmissible Red Bull’s form of order requesting that Sun Mark be ordered to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares inadmissible Red Bull’s form of order requesting that Sun Mark be ordered to pay the costs

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)

(Case T-368/13) (1)

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

(2015/C 096/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers, then V. von Bomhard)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Lehning entreprise SARL (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by: P. Demoly, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2013 (Case R 571/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Lehning entreprise SARL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Lehning entreprise SARL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Lehning entreprise SARL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Innovation First v OHIM (NANO)

(Case T-379/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark NANO - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Innovation First, Inc. (Greenville, South Carolina, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2013 (Case R 1271/2012-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign NANO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Innovation First, Inc. to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Innovation First, Inc. to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — nMetric LLC v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)

(Case T-499/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: nMetric LLC (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: T. Fuchs and A. Münch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2013 (Case R 887/2012-2), concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the word mark SMARTER SCHEDULING.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders nMetric LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders nMetric LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 5.2.13.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)

(Case T-648/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GLISTEN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IOIP Holdings LLC (Fort Wayne, United States) (represented by: H. Dhondt and S. Kinart, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1028/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GLISTEN as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IOIP Holdings LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IOIP Holdings LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — BQ v Court of Auditors

(Case T-7/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Staff report - Psychological harassment - Dismissal in part of the action for compensation at first instance - Distortion of the facts - Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons - Proportionality - Allocation of costs))

(2015/C 096/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: BQ (Béreldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and M. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented initially by: T. Kennedy, B. Schäfer and I. Ni Riagáin Düro, and subsequently by: B. Schäfer and I. Ni Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013, BQ v Court of Auditors (F-39/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:158) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr BQ to bear, in the present instance, his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Court of Auditors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr BQ to bear, in the present instance, his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Court of Auditors.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T-85/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DINKOOL - Earlier international figurative mark DIN - Earlier national business identifier DIN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 096/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Bagh, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2013 (Case R 1106/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

| 3. | Orders DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/20

---

Order of the General Court of 26 January 2015 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad)

(Case T-396/13) (1)

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

(2015/C 096/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Franko Dosen (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Losert, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann and subsequently M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thomas Gramm (Wesel, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 1981/2011-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Thomas Gramm and Franko Dosen.

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 shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/20

---

Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — UNIC v Commission

(Case T-338/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Joint actions to promote sustainable development economically, socially and environmentally in developing countries - Generalised tariff preferences granted to treated and partly treated leather originating from India, Pakistan and Ethiopia - Rejection of the application for a temporary withdrawal of the benefit of generalised preferences - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 096/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Unione nazionale industria conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini and M. Bottino, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 19 March 2014 addressed to the applicant and rejecting its request for initiation of a temporary withdrawal procedure in respect of the generalised preferential arrangements granted to the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia with regard to raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is rejected as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention made by the Republic of Italy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention made by the Republic of Italy.

| 3. | The Unione nazionale industria conciaria (UNIC) shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Unione nazionale industria conciaria (UNIC) shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/21

---

Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-827/14)

(2015/C 096/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Apel and D. Schroeder, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 in Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom, as amended by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 in Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom, as amended by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed on the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed on the applicant;

| — | 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence in the determination of abusive conduct






  — | The applicant claims that the Commission did not properly establish a refusal to supply, since it did not examine the indispensability of the relevant upstream input. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence in the determination of abusive conduct

—

The applicant claims that the Commission did not properly establish a refusal to supply, since it did not examine the indispensability of the relevant upstream input.

| — | The applicant further claims that the Commission did not grant the applicant the right to be heard on the facts and methods by which it established a margin squeeze of the undertaking concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further claims that the Commission did not grant the applicant the right to be heard on the facts and methods by which it established a margin squeeze of the undertaking concerned.

| — | Furthermore, it is submitted that the Commission used a defective methodology for the margin squeeze and incorrectly calculated the long-term average marginal cost. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, it is submitted that the Commission used a defective methodology for the margin squeeze and incorrectly calculated the long-term average marginal cost.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the determination of the duration of the infringement






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission should not have let the infringement begin as early as the publication of the reference offer and in any event should not have included the year 2005 in the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the determination of the duration of the infringement

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission should not have let the infringement begin as early as the publication of the reference offer and in any event should not have included the year 2005 in the duration of the infringement.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the attribution of the infringement to the applicant, since the Commission did not prove the actual exercise of decisive influence of the applicant over the undertaking concerned






  — | The applicant submits that the Commission should not have attributed the anticompetitive conduct of the undertaking concerned to the applicant, since the applicant and that undertaking did not form a single economic entity. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the attribution of the infringement to the applicant, since the Commission did not prove the actual exercise of decisive influence of the applicant over the undertaking concerned

—

The applicant submits that the Commission should not have attributed the anticompetitive conduct of the undertaking concerned to the applicant, since the applicant and that undertaking did not form a single economic entity.

| — | In particular, the Commission did not prove that the applicant actually exercised decisive influence over the undertaking concerned. In addition, the applicant was unaware of the alleged abusive conduct of the undertaking concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

In particular, the Commission did not prove that the applicant actually exercised decisive influence over the undertaking concerned. In addition, the applicant was unaware of the alleged abusive conduct of the undertaking concerned.

| — | The applicant also claims that, in its attempt to prove the actual exercise of decisive influence, the Commission, when interpreting the facts, infringed, in particular, the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also claims that, in its attempt to prove the actual exercise of decisive influence, the Commission, when interpreting the facts, infringed, in particular, the presumption of innocence.

| — | Lastly, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Commission did not prove that the alleged exercise of decisive influence was considerable. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lastly, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Commission did not prove that the alleged exercise of decisive influence was considerable.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Errors of law owing to the imposition of a separate fine on the applicant






  — | In the Commission’s view, the undertaking concerned and the applicant formed part of the same undertaking during the entire duration of the infringement and at the time of the setting of the fine, but also already at the time of the applicant’s infringement considered for repeated infringement, which was sanctioned by the Commission in 2003. The Commission therefore should not have imposed a separate fine on the applicant, since the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence concerns only the undertaking as such and not the legal persons belonging to it. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Errors of law owing to the imposition of a separate fine on the applicant

—

In the Commission’s view, the undertaking concerned and the applicant formed part of the same undertaking during the entire duration of the infringement and at the time of the setting of the fine, but also already at the time of the applicant’s infringement considered for repeated infringement, which was sanctioned by the Commission in 2003. The Commission therefore should not have imposed a separate fine on the applicant, since the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence concerns only the undertaking as such and not the legal persons belonging to it.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in fixing the amount of the fine






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that, in calculating the basic amount, the Commission should not have used the turnover of the undertaking concerned with the concerned products in 2010, but should have used the average annual turnover for the years 2005 — 2010. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in fixing the amount of the fine

—

The applicant submits in that regard that, in calculating the basic amount, the Commission should not have used the turnover of the undertaking concerned with the concerned products in 2010, but should have used the average annual turnover for the years 2005 — 2010.

| — | In addition, under no circumstances should the Commission have included the year 2005 when taking account of the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, under no circumstances should the Commission have included the year 2005 when taking account of the duration of the infringement.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/22

---

Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Farahat v Council

(Case T-830/14)

(2015/C 096/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Farahat (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (EU) No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 (1) implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measure against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 (2) implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (EU) No 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 (1) implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measure against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 (2) implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the Annex of the Decision and Regulation. The applicant submits that:






  — | the Council alleges the applicant is Vice-president of Finance and Administration at Tri Ocean Energy and that in view of his position he is responsible for the activities of the entity in supplying oil to the regime, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the Annex of the Decision and Regulation. The applicant submits that:

—

the Council alleges the applicant is Vice-president of Finance and Administration at Tri Ocean Energy and that in view of his position he is responsible for the activities of the entity in supplying oil to the regime,

| — | there is no evidence to substantiate that allegation and none has been produced by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is no evidence to substantiate that allegation and none has been produced by the Council.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection given that the contested measures were adopted without including procedural safeguards to ensure that the applicant was given a full statement of reasons and a guarantee that he would be properly heard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant's rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection given that the contested measures were adopted without including procedural safeguards to ensure that the applicant was given a full statement of reasons and a guarantee that he would be properly heard.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The applicant states that the reason is insufficient to enable him to mount an effective challenge to the allegations made against him, or to enable a court to review the lawfulness of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The applicant states that the reason is insufficient to enable him to mount an effective challenge to the allegations made against him, or to enable a court to review the lawfulness of the contested decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The applicant considers that the Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The applicant considers that the Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, the Council made a manifest error of assessment in listing the applicant. The applicant contends that:






  — | there is no information or evidence available to substantiate that Tri Ocean Energy has in fact provided support to the Syrian regime, |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, the Council made a manifest error of assessment in listing the applicant. The applicant contends that:

—

there is no information or evidence available to substantiate that Tri Ocean Energy has in fact provided support to the Syrian regime,

| — | there is no information or evidence to suggest that merely by virtue of his role the applicant was responsible for the alleged actions of Tri Ocean Energy. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is no information or evidence to suggest that merely by virtue of his role the applicant was responsible for the alleged actions of Tri Ocean Energy.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014, L 301, p. 36).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014, L 301, p. 7).

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/23

---

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T-45/15)

(2015/C 096/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40  721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40  721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment;

| — | order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2006, the grant contract LIFE06 ENV/B/000362, entitled ‘Demonstration of a 100 % non-toxic durable hull protection and anti-fouling system contributing to zero emission to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels’, was signed by the European Commission and the applicant. The recovery by the Commission at issue is based on an ex-post audit which allegedly showed that the eligible costs of the project had to be reduced.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the obligation to state reasons has been infringed. It submits that the Commission took no account of an audit that was carried out when all the documents were still available. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission took no account of its observation on the ex-post audit report, which justified an additional amount.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/24

---

Order of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — Fuhr v Commission

(Case T-248/12) (1)

(2015/C 096/30)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

---

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-2/15)

(2015/C 096/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Véghely, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant an installation allowance and a daily subsistence allowance and application to order the Commission to pay those allowances with interest.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014 insofar as it refuses to grant him the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014 insofar as it refuses to grant him the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Commission to pay him the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on taking up his appointment, together with interest from the dates on which those amounts became payable pursuant to Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay him the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on taking up his appointment, together with interest from the dates on which those amounts became payable pursuant to Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

---

Action brought on 9 January 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-3/15)

(2015/C 096/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting the applicants’ requests for repayment of a portion of the contributions to the European Union pension scheme which were deducted from their pay and the request to reassess the credit relating to the transfer of pension rights, acquired before their entry into service, to the EU scheme.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare inapplicable Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force since 1 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare inapplicable Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force since 1 November 2014;

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/26

---

Action brought on 12 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-4/15)

(2015/C 096/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission decisions to apply to the applicants’ salaries and pensions the adjustments provided under Regulation Nos 422/2014 and 423/2014 respectively for the years 2011 and 2012 and the claim for damages for the material loss suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as it is necessary, the decisions rejecting the claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as it is necessary, the decisions rejecting the claims;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, in damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, in damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/26

---

Action brought on 19 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-5/15)

(2015/C 096/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The declaration of the illegality of Article 9 of the general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the annulment of the decision relating to transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, a decision which applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is illegal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is illegal;

| — | Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, under the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, under the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

---

Action brought on 30 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-16/15)

(2015/C 096/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to change the description of the type of post held by the applicants in the Sysper 2 application and not to include them in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the promotion round for 2014.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim, primarily, that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

| — | annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative, the applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files contained in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files contained in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

| — | annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-18/15)

(2015/C 096/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to change the description of the type of post held by the applicants in the Sysper 2 application and/or not to include them in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the promotion round for 2014.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim, primarily, that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

| — | annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative, the applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

| — | annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---