# Official Journal C 344/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.344.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 344 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5623 November 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.344.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 344

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5623 November 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 344/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 336, 16.11.2013 | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 344/02 | Assignment of Judges to Chambers | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 344/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 336, 16.11.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

General Court

2013/C 344/02

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 344/03 | Case C-189/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer — Exclusion from the special scheme of certain sales to the public — Mention in the invoice of an amount of deductible VAT not related to the input tax due or paid — Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period — Not compatible) | 4 |
| 2013/C 344/04 | Case C-193/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer) | 5 |
| 2013/C 344/05 | Case C-221/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Additional Protocol — Article 41(1) — Standstill clause — Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State — Freedom to provide services — The right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services) | 5 |
| 2013/C 344/06 | Case C-236/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client) | 6 |
| 2013/C 344/07 | Case C-267/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system — Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia — Period from 2008 to 2012) | 6 |
| 2013/C 344/08 | Case C-269/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer) | 7 |
| 2013/C 344/09 | Case C-293/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client) | 7 |
| 2013/C 344/10 | Case C-296/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client) | 8 |
| 2013/C 344/11 | Case C-309/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client) | 8 |
| 2013/C 344/12 | Case C-369/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(1) and 30(3) — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Levying of charges — Infrastructure fees — Independence of infrastructure managers) | 9 |
| 2013/C 344/13 | Case C-373/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon (Request for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production — Discretion granted to the Member States — Discrimination — Articles 32 EC and 34 EC) | 9 |
| 2013/C 344/14 | Case C-418/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck, Austria) — TEXDATA Software GmbH (Company law — Freedom of establishment — Eleventh Directive 89/666/EEC — Disclosure of accounting documents — Branch of a capital company established in another Member State — Pecuniary penalty in the event of failure to disclose within the prescribed period — Right to effective judicial protection — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty) | 10 |
| 2013/C 344/15 | Case C-431/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Coordination of social security systems — EEA Agreement — Proposal for an amendment — Council decision — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU — Article 79(2)(b) TFEU) | 10 |
| 2013/C 344/16 | Case C-435/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team4 Travel GmbH (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Sales brochure containing false information — Treated as misleading commercial practice — Case in which the trader cannot be criticised for any breach of the duty of diligence) | 11 |
| 2013/C 344/17 | Case C-450/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer) | 11 |
| 2013/C 344/18 | Case C-476/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S (Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21(1) — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Occupational pension scheme — Increases in the amount of contributions on the basis of age) | 12 |
| 2013/C 344/19 | Case C-509/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG (Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 — Rail passengers’ rights and obligations — Article 17 — Compensation in the event of a delay — Excluded in the event of force majeure — Whether permissible — First subparagraph of Article 30(1) — Powers of the national body responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Whether it is possible to require the rail carrier to amend its conditions governing passenger compensation) | 12 |
| 2013/C 344/20 | Case C-539/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara (Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Opticians — Regional legislation making the establishment of new opticians’ shops subject to authorisation — Demographic and geographical limitations — Justification — Appropriateness for attaining the objective pursued — Coherency — Proportionality) | 13 |
| 2013/C 344/21 | Case C-546/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension) | 13 |
| 2013/C 344/22 | Case C-583/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on importing and marketing such products — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept of regulatory act — Legislative act — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection) | 14 |
| 2013/C 344/23 | Case C-609/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Concept — Evidence — Sworn statement — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — General Court’s powers of review — Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener) | 15 |
| 2013/C 344/24 | Case C-610/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Evidence — Sworn statement — Burden of proof — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15, 51 and 76 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 40(5)) | 15 |
| 2013/C 344/25 | Case C-622/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 13C and 20 — Supply of immovable property — Right to opt for taxation — Right to deduction — Adjustment of deductions — Recovery of sums due following adjustment of a VAT deduction — Taxable person liable for payment — Taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction and who is extraneous to the taxed transaction which gave rise to the deduction) | 16 |
| 2013/C 344/26 | Case C-625/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 57 and 59 — Substances subject to authorisation — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Inclusion on the candidate list of substances — Publication — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Date from which that time limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet — Legal certainty — Effective judicial protection) | 16 |
| 2013/C 344/27 | Case C-626/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeal — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 57 and 59 — Substances subject to authorisation — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Inclusion on the candidate list of substances — Publication of the list on the ECHA website — Action for annulment brought prior to that publication — Admissibility) | 17 |
| 2013/C 344/28 | Case C-661/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5 — Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark — Consent given in a situation where there is shared use — Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark) | 17 |
| 2013/C 344/29 | Case C-668/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Obligation to state reasons — Mitigating circumstances) | 18 |
| 2013/C 344/30 | Case C-679/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation — Unlimited jurisdiction — Ne ultra petita — Right to a fair hearing) | 18 |
| 2013/C 344/31 | Case C-5/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Lleida — Spain) — Marc Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 8 — Maternity leave — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Article 2(1) and (3) — Right to leave for employed mothers after the birth of a child — Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father — Non-employed mother who is not covered by a State social security scheme — No right to leave for employed father — Biological father and adoptive father — Principle of equal treatment) | 19 |
| 2013/C 344/32 | Case C-32/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA (Directive 1999/44/EC — Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product — Minor nature of that lack of conformity — Rescission of the contract not possible — Powers of the national courts) | 19 |
| 2013/C 344/33 | Case C-56/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA (Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Ink cartridge market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC — Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged) | 20 |
| 2013/C 344/34 | Case C-59/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Scope — Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system — Fund established as a public law body) | 20 |
| 2013/C 344/35 | Case C-86/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children — Union citizens born in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals and who have not made use of their right of freedom of movement — Fundamental rights) | 21 |
| 2013/C 344/36 | Case C-94/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI v Provincia di Fermo (Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Economic and financial standing — Technical and/or professional ability — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Right of an economic operator to rely on the capacities of other entities — Article 52 — Certification system — Public works contracts — National legislation requiring possession of a qualification certificate corresponding to the category and the value of the works covered by the contract — Prohibition on reliance on the certificates of more than one entity for works within the same category) | 22 |
| 2013/C 344/37 | Case C-109/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Laboratoires Lyocentre v Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product for human use a product marketed in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking — Applicable procedure) | 22 |
| 2013/C 344/38 | Case C-113/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency (Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC — Slurry produced in a piggery and stored there pending its transfer to farmers who use it as fertiliser on their land — Classification as waste or by-product — Conditions — Burden of proof — Directive 91/676/EEC — Failure to transpose — Personal liability of the producer as to compliance by those farmers with European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers) | 23 |
| 2013/C 344/39 | Case C-115/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique — Reduction of financial assistance — Public works contracts — Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 2 — Concept of direct subsidy — Concept of facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure) | 24 |
| 2013/C 344/40 | Case C-120/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account) | 24 |
| 2013/C 344/41 | Case C-121/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account) | 25 |
| 2013/C 344/42 | Case C-122/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account) | 25 |
| 2013/C 344/43 | Case C-140/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey (Freedom of movement for persons — Union Citizenship — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Article 7(1)(b) — Person no longer having worker status — Person in possession of a retirement pension — Having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State — Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit — Compensatory supplement intended to augment a retirement pension — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 3(2) and 70 — Competence of the Member State of residence — Conditions for granting — Legal right to reside on the national territory — Compliance with European Union law) | 26 |
| 2013/C 344/44 | Case C-157/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties) | 26 |
| 2013/C 344/45 | Case C-170/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict — Copyright — Material support reproducing a protected work — Placing on line — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred) | 27 |
| 2013/C 344/46 | Case C-172/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Joint control by two parent companies — Decisive influence — Joint and several liability — Limitation period — Legitimate interest) | 27 |
| 2013/C 344/47 | Case C-179/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Joint control by two parent companies — Decisive influence — Rights of defence — Increase in the fine — Deterrent effect) | 28 |
| 2013/C 344/48 | Case C-195/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA v Région wallonne (Directive 2004/8/EC — Scope — Cogeneration and high efficiency cogeneration — Article 7 — Regional support scheme providing for the grant of green certificates to cogeneration plants — Grant of a larger number of green certificates to cogeneration plants processing principally forms of biomass other than wood or wood waste — Principle of equality and non-discrimination — Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 28 |
| 2013/C 344/49 | Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12) (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg — Grant of a parental leave allowance — Concept of a family benefit) | 29 |
| 2013/C 344/50 | Case C-251/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels — Belgium) — Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Article 24(1) — Honouring an obligation for the benefit of a debtor that is subject to insolvency proceedings — Payment made to a creditor of that debtor) | 29 |
| 2013/C 344/51 | Case C-282/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Pública (Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest paid by a resident company on funds lent by a company established in a non-member country — Existence of special relations between those companies — Thin capitalisation rules — No right of deduction in relation to interest on the part of the overall debt regarded as excessive — Interest deductible if paid to a company resident in the national territory — Tax evasion and avoidance — Wholly artificial arrangements — Arm’s length terms — Proportionality) | 30 |
| 2013/C 344/52 | Case C-283/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 — Chargeable event — Reciprocal supplies of services — Transactions for consideration — Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services — Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property) | 30 |
| 2013/C 344/53 | Case C-297/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani (Area of freedom, security and justice — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 11(2) — Return decision coupled with an entry ban — Length of the entry ban restricted to five years in principle — National legislation providing for an entry ban of unlimited duration in the absence of an application for a limitation — Article 2(2)(b) — Third-country nationals subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction — Non-application of the directive) | 31 |
| 2013/C 344/54 | Case C-298/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Calculation of payment entitlement — Setting the reference amount — Reference period — Article 40(1), (2) and (5) — Exceptional circumstances — Farmers under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Determination of the right to revalorisation of the reference amount — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Equal treatment between farmers) | 32 |
| 2013/C 344/55 | Case C-306/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 21(5) — Claims representative — Authority to accept service of judicial documents — National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept it — Interpretation in conformity with Union law) | 32 |
| 2013/C 344/56 | Case C-317/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg (Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Obligation to install recording equipment — Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods — Concept — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties) | 33 |
| 2013/C 344/57 | Case C-321/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 28(2)(b) — Sickness insurance benefits — Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States — Residence in another Member State — Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence — Burden of the cost of benefits — Member State legislation to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time — Concept) | 33 |
| 2013/C 344/58 | Case C-322/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA (Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Article 2(3) — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Article 2(5) — Obligation to depart from that principle — Article 32 — Valuation method based on historical cost — Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value) | 34 |
| 2013/C 344/59 | Case C-336/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S (Request for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Principle of equal treatment — Restricted procedure — Contract notice — Requirement for a copy of the most recent published balance sheet to be enclosed with the application — Copies of balance sheets not enclosed with some candidates’ applications — Right of the contracting authority to ask those candidates to provide copies of those balance sheets after the deadline for filing applications) | 34 |
| 2013/C 344/60 | Case C-353/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid for Ixfin SpA — Aid which is illegal and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Non-performance) | 35 |
| 2013/C 344/61 | Case C-386/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings initiated by Siegfried János Schneider (Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope — Legal capacity of natural persons — Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property — Scope — Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State) | 35 |
| 2013/C 344/62 | Case C-492/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Dental profession — Specific nature and distinction from the medical profession — Common training) | 36 |
| 2013/C 344/63 | Case C-579/12 RX-II: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Guido Strack (Review of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/11 P — Civil service — Commission decision refusing to carry over paid annual leave not taken by an official during the reference period because of long term sick leave — Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Principle of the social law of the European Union — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effect on the unity and consistency of European Union law) | 36 |
| 2013/C 344/64 | Case C-573/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeals — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible — Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded) | 37 |
| 2013/C 344/65 | Case C-34/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Action for damages — Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure — Prejudicial statements — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 38 |
| 2013/C 344/66 | Case C-356/13: Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 38 |
| 2013/C 344/67 | Case C-430/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2013 — Ilona Baradics and Others v QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam | 38 |
| 2013/C 344/68 | Case C-440/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Croce Amica One Italia Srl v Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU) | 39 |
| 2013/C 344/69 | Case C-443/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck | 39 |
| 2013/C 344/70 | Case C-445/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Voss of Norway ASA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2013 in Case T-178/11: Voss of Norway ASA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 40 |
| 2013/C 344/71 | Case C-451/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG | 41 |
| 2013/C 344/72 | Case C-453/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2013 — The Queen on application of Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency | 42 |
| 2013/C 344/73 | Case C-457/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission | 42 |
| 2013/C 344/74 | Case C-458/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. | 43 |
| 2013/C 344/75 | Case C-459/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky | 44 |
| 2013/C 344/76 | Case C-463/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2013 — Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato | 44 |
| 2013/C 344/77 | Case C-468/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 45 |
| 2013/C 344/78 | Case C-471/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 45 |
| 2013/C 344/79 | Case C-477/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2013 — Hans Angerer v Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer | 46 |
| 2013/C 344/80 | Case C-479/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic | 46 |
| 2013/C 344/81 | Case C-488/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD | 47 |
| 2013/C 344/82 | Case C-491/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Federal Republic of Germany | 47 |
| 2013/C 344/83 | Case C-492/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Traum EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite | 48 |
| 2013/C 344/84 | Case C-493/13: Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia | 48 |
| 2013/C 344/85 | Case C-498/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simboulio tis Epikratias lodged on 16 September 2013 — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly | 49 |
| 2013/C 344/86 | Case C-502/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg | 49 |
| 2013/C 344/87 | Case C-505/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2013 — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna | 50 |
| 2013/C 344/88 | Case C-506/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2013 by Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 in Case T-552/11 Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission | 50 |
| 2013/C 344/89 | Case C-508/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union | 51 |
| 2013/C 344/90 | Case C-521/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2013 by Think Schuhwerk GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-208/12 Think Schuhwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 52 |
| 2013/C 344/91 | Case C-245/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 53 |
| 2013/C 344/92 | Case C-310/12: Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2013 — European Commission v Hungary | 53 |
| 2013/C 344/93 | Case C-544/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 53 |
| 2013/C 344/94 | Case C-610/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen | 53 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 344/95 | Case T-545/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance glyphosate — Partial refusal of access — Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person — Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Overriding public interest — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — Directive 91/414/EEC) | 54 |
| 2013/C 344/96 | Case T-167/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Professional development — Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group — Distortion of evidence) | 54 |
| 2013/C 344/97 | Case T-285/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BOOMERANG — Earlier Community figurative mark BoomerangTV — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 55 |
| 2013/C 344/98 | Case T-554/11: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Action for annulment — Financing by the European Union of certain projects in Tunisia, in the framework of the EuropeAid programme — Development of an integrated IT system for the Tunisian judiciary — Recovery by the Commission of debts payable to Tunisia by a third party — Debit note — Acts inseparable from the contract — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissible) | 55 |
| 2013/C 344/99 | Case T-153/12: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP International (SKYDRIVE) (Community trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 55 |
| 2013/C 344/00 | Case T-397/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission (Interim measures — Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Regulation fixing the refunds at zero — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests) | 56 |
| 2013/C 344/01 | Case T-407/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Al Assad v Council | 56 |
| 2013/C 344/02 | Case T-408/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council | 56 |
| 2013/C 344/03 | Case T-431/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL) | 57 |
| 2013/C 344/04 | Case T-440/13: Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Millano Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (shape of boxes of chocolates) | 57 |
| 2013/C 344/05 | Case T-473/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — G-Star Raw v OHIM — PepsiCo (PEPSI RAW) | 57 |
| 2013/C 344/06 | Case T-478/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE) | 58 |
| 2013/C 344/07 | Case T-480/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — You-View.tv/OHMI — YouView TV (YouView+) | 58 |
| 2013/C 344/08 | Case T-483/13: Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission | 59 |
| 2013/C 344/09 | Case T-484/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS) | 59 |
| 2013/C 344/10 | Case T-491/13: Action brought on 11 September 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Kraft Foods Global Brands (TRIDENT PURE) | 60 |
| 2013/C 344/11 | Case T-494/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt) | 60 |
| 2013/C 344/12 | Case T-495/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (Watt) | 61 |
| 2013/C 344/13 | Case T-496/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — McCullough v Cedefop | 61 |
| 2013/C 344/14 | Case T-497/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Neuromodulation v OHIM (PRECISION SPECTRA) | 62 |
| 2013/C 344/15 | Case T-498/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU) | 62 |
| 2013/C 344/16 | Case T-499/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING) | 63 |
| 2013/C 344/17 | Case T-505/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission | 63 |
| 2013/C 344/18 | Case T-509/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD) | 64 |
| 2013/C 344/19 | Case T-519/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR) | 65 |
| 2013/C 344/20 | Case T-520/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Philip Morris Benelux/Commission | 65 |
| 2013/C 344/21 | Case T-527/13: Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission | 66 |
| 2013/C 344/22 | Case T-538/13: Action brought on 10 October 2013 — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission | 66 |
| 2013/C 344/23 | Case T-542/13: Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission | 67 |
| 2013/C 344/24 | Case T-544/13: Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Dyson v Commission | 68 |
| 2013/C 344/25 | Case T-557/12: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — RiskMetrics Solutions v OHIM — (RISKMANAGER) | 68 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 344/26 | Case F-116/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary agent — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Annual dialogue with the reporting officer — Setting objectives) | 69 |
| 2013/C 344/27 | Case F-81/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 69 |
| 2013/C 344/28 | Case F-83/13: Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 69 |
| 2013/C 344/29 | Case F-87/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament | 69 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 344/03

Case C-189/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer — Exclusion from the special scheme of certain sales to the public — Mention in the invoice of an amount of deductible VAT not related to the input tax due or paid — Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period — Not compatible)

4

2013/C 344/04

Case C-193/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer)

5

2013/C 344/05

Case C-221/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Additional Protocol — Article 41(1) — Standstill clause — Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State — Freedom to provide services — The right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services)

5

2013/C 344/06

Case C-236/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client)

6

2013/C 344/07

Case C-267/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system — Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia — Period from 2008 to 2012)

6

2013/C 344/08

Case C-269/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer)

7

2013/C 344/09

Case C-293/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client)

7

2013/C 344/10

Case C-296/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client)

8

2013/C 344/11

Case C-309/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and client)

8

2013/C 344/12

Case C-369/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(1) and 30(3) — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Levying of charges — Infrastructure fees — Independence of infrastructure managers)

9

2013/C 344/13

Case C-373/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon (Request for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production — Discretion granted to the Member States — Discrimination — Articles 32 EC and 34 EC)

9

2013/C 344/14

Case C-418/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck, Austria) — TEXDATA Software GmbH (Company law — Freedom of establishment — Eleventh Directive 89/666/EEC — Disclosure of accounting documents — Branch of a capital company established in another Member State — Pecuniary penalty in the event of failure to disclose within the prescribed period — Right to effective judicial protection — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)

10

2013/C 344/15

Case C-431/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Coordination of social security systems — EEA Agreement — Proposal for an amendment — Council decision — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU — Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)

10

2013/C 344/16

Case C-435/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team4 Travel GmbH (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Sales brochure containing false information — Treated as misleading commercial practice — Case in which the trader cannot be criticised for any breach of the duty of diligence)

11

2013/C 344/17

Case C-450/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of traveller and customer)

11

2013/C 344/18

Case C-476/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S (Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21(1) — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Occupational pension scheme — Increases in the amount of contributions on the basis of age)

12

2013/C 344/19

Case C-509/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG (Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 — Rail passengers’ rights and obligations — Article 17 — Compensation in the event of a delay — Excluded in the event of force majeure — Whether permissible — First subparagraph of Article 30(1) — Powers of the national body responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Whether it is possible to require the rail carrier to amend its conditions governing passenger compensation)

12

2013/C 344/20

Case C-539/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara (Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Opticians — Regional legislation making the establishment of new opticians’ shops subject to authorisation — Demographic and geographical limitations — Justification — Appropriateness for attaining the objective pursued — Coherency — Proportionality)

13

2013/C 344/21

Case C-546/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)

13

2013/C 344/22

Case C-583/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on importing and marketing such products — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept of regulatory act — Legislative act — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

14

2013/C 344/23

Case C-609/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Concept — Evidence — Sworn statement — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — General Court’s powers of review — Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)

15

2013/C 344/24

Case C-610/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Evidence — Sworn statement — Burden of proof — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15, 51 and 76 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 40(5))

15

2013/C 344/25

Case C-622/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 13C and 20 — Supply of immovable property — Right to opt for taxation — Right to deduction — Adjustment of deductions — Recovery of sums due following adjustment of a VAT deduction — Taxable person liable for payment — Taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction and who is extraneous to the taxed transaction which gave rise to the deduction)

16

2013/C 344/26

Case C-625/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 57 and 59 — Substances subject to authorisation — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Inclusion on the candidate list of substances — Publication — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Date from which that time limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet — Legal certainty — Effective judicial protection)

16

2013/C 344/27

Case C-626/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeal — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 57 and 59 — Substances subject to authorisation — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Inclusion on the candidate list of substances — Publication of the list on the ECHA website — Action for annulment brought prior to that publication — Admissibility)

17

2013/C 344/28

Case C-661/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5 — Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark — Consent given in a situation where there is shared use — Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark)

17

2013/C 344/29

Case C-668/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Cooperation — Obligation to state reasons — Mitigating circumstances)

18

2013/C 344/30

Case C-679/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation — Unlimited jurisdiction — Ne ultra petita — Right to a fair hearing)

18

2013/C 344/31

Case C-5/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Lleida — Spain) — Marc Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 8 — Maternity leave — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Article 2(1) and (3) — Right to leave for employed mothers after the birth of a child — Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father — Non-employed mother who is not covered by a State social security scheme — No right to leave for employed father — Biological father and adoptive father — Principle of equal treatment)

o

19

2013/C 344/32

Case C-32/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA (Directive 1999/44/EC — Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product — Minor nature of that lack of conformity — Rescission of the contract not possible — Powers of the national courts)

o

19

2013/C 344/33

Case C-56/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA (Appeal — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Ink cartridge market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Lack of Community interest — Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC — Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged)

20

2013/C 344/34

Case C-59/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Scope — Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system — Fund established as a public law body)

20

2013/C 344/35

Case C-86/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children — Union citizens born in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals and who have not made use of their right of freedom of movement — Fundamental rights)

21

2013/C 344/36

Case C-94/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI v Provincia di Fermo (Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Economic and financial standing — Technical and/or professional ability — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Right of an economic operator to rely on the capacities of other entities — Article 52 — Certification system — Public works contracts — National legislation requiring possession of a qualification certificate corresponding to the category and the value of the works covered by the contract — Prohibition on reliance on the certificates of more than one entity for works within the same category)

22

2013/C 344/37

Case C-109/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Laboratoires Lyocentre v Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product for human use a product marketed in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking — Applicable procedure)

22

2013/C 344/38

Case C-113/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency (Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC — Slurry produced in a piggery and stored there pending its transfer to farmers who use it as fertiliser on their land — Classification as waste or by-product — Conditions — Burden of proof — Directive 91/676/EEC — Failure to transpose — Personal liability of the producer as to compliance by those farmers with European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers)

23

2013/C 344/39

Case C-115/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique — Reduction of financial assistance — Public works contracts — Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 2 — Concept of direct subsidy — Concept of facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure)

24

2013/C 344/40

Case C-120/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

24

2013/C 344/41

Case C-121/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

25

2013/C 344/42

Case C-122/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

25

2013/C 344/43

Case C-140/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey (Freedom of movement for persons — Union Citizenship — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Article 7(1)(b) — Person no longer having worker status — Person in possession of a retirement pension — Having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State — Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit — Compensatory supplement intended to augment a retirement pension — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 3(2) and 70 — Competence of the Member State of residence — Conditions for granting — Legal right to reside on the national territory — Compliance with European Union law)

26

2013/C 344/44

Case C-157/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)

26

2013/C 344/45

Case C-170/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict — Copyright — Material support reproducing a protected work — Placing on line — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

27

2013/C 344/46

Case C-172/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Joint control by two parent companies — Decisive influence — Joint and several liability — Limitation period — Legitimate interest)

27

2013/C 344/47

Case C-179/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Joint control by two parent companies — Decisive influence — Rights of defence — Increase in the fine — Deterrent effect)

28

2013/C 344/48

Case C-195/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA v Région wallonne (Directive 2004/8/EC — Scope — Cogeneration and high efficiency cogeneration — Article 7 — Regional support scheme providing for the grant of green certificates to cogeneration plants — Grant of a larger number of green certificates to cogeneration plants processing principally forms of biomass other than wood or wood waste — Principle of equality and non-discrimination — Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

28

2013/C 344/49

Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12) (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg — Grant of a parental leave allowance — Concept of a family benefit)

29

2013/C 344/50

Case C-251/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels — Belgium) — Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Article 24(1) — Honouring an obligation for the benefit of a debtor that is subject to insolvency proceedings — Payment made to a creditor of that debtor)

29

2013/C 344/51

Case C-282/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Pública (Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest paid by a resident company on funds lent by a company established in a non-member country — Existence of special relations between those companies — Thin capitalisation rules — No right of deduction in relation to interest on the part of the overall debt regarded as excessive — Interest deductible if paid to a company resident in the national territory — Tax evasion and avoidance — Wholly artificial arrangements — Arm’s length terms — Proportionality)

30

2013/C 344/52

Case C-283/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 — Chargeable event — Reciprocal supplies of services — Transactions for consideration — Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services — Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property)

30

2013/C 344/53

Case C-297/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani (Area of freedom, security and justice — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 11(2) — Return decision coupled with an entry ban — Length of the entry ban restricted to five years in principle — National legislation providing for an entry ban of unlimited duration in the absence of an application for a limitation — Article 2(2)(b) — Third-country nationals subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction — Non-application of the directive)

31

2013/C 344/54

Case C-298/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Calculation of payment entitlement — Setting the reference amount — Reference period — Article 40(1), (2) and (5) — Exceptional circumstances — Farmers under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Determination of the right to revalorisation of the reference amount — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Equal treatment between farmers)

32

2013/C 344/55

Case C-306/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 21(5) — Claims representative — Authority to accept service of judicial documents — National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept it — Interpretation in conformity with Union law)

32

2013/C 344/56

Case C-317/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg (Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Obligation to install recording equipment — Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods — Concept — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)

33

2013/C 344/57

Case C-321/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 28(2)(b) — Sickness insurance benefits — Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States — Residence in another Member State — Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence — Burden of the cost of benefits — Member State legislation to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time — Concept)

33

2013/C 344/58

Case C-322/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA (Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Article 2(3) — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Article 2(5) — Obligation to depart from that principle — Article 32 — Valuation method based on historical cost — Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)

34

2013/C 344/59

Case C-336/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S (Request for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Principle of equal treatment — Restricted procedure — Contract notice — Requirement for a copy of the most recent published balance sheet to be enclosed with the application — Copies of balance sheets not enclosed with some candidates’ applications — Right of the contracting authority to ask those candidates to provide copies of those balance sheets after the deadline for filing applications)

34

2013/C 344/60

Case C-353/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid for Ixfin SpA — Aid which is illegal and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Non-performance)

35

2013/C 344/61

Case C-386/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings initiated by Siegfried János Schneider (Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope — Legal capacity of natural persons — Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property — Scope — Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State)

35

2013/C 344/62

Case C-492/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Dental profession — Specific nature and distinction from the medical profession — Common training)

36

2013/C 344/63

Case C-579/12 RX-II: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Guido Strack (Review of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/11 P — Civil service — Commission decision refusing to carry over paid annual leave not taken by an official during the reference period because of long term sick leave — Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Principle of the social law of the European Union — Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Effect on the unity and consistency of European Union law)

36

2013/C 344/64

Case C-573/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeals — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible — Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded)

37

2013/C 344/65

Case C-34/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Action for damages — Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure — Prejudicial statements — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

38

2013/C 344/66

Case C-356/13: Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

38

2013/C 344/67

Case C-430/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2013 — Ilona Baradics and Others v QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam

38

2013/C 344/68

Case C-440/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Croce Amica One Italia Srl v Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU)

39

2013/C 344/69

Case C-443/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

39

2013/C 344/70

Case C-445/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Voss of Norway ASA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2013 in Case T-178/11: Voss of Norway ASA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

40

2013/C 344/71

Case C-451/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

41

2013/C 344/72

Case C-453/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2013 — The Queen on application of Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency

42

2013/C 344/73

Case C-457/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission

42

2013/C 344/74

Case C-458/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.

43

2013/C 344/75

Case C-459/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky

44

2013/C 344/76

Case C-463/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2013 — Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

44

2013/C 344/77

Case C-468/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

45

2013/C 344/78

Case C-471/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

45

2013/C 344/79

Case C-477/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2013 — Hans Angerer v Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer

46

2013/C 344/80

Case C-479/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

46

2013/C 344/81

Case C-488/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD

47

2013/C 344/82

Case C-491/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Federal Republic of Germany

47

2013/C 344/83

Case C-492/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Traum EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

48

2013/C 344/84

Case C-493/13: Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

48

2013/C 344/85

Case C-498/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simboulio tis Epikratias lodged on 16 September 2013 — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly

49

2013/C 344/86

Case C-502/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

49

2013/C 344/87

Case C-505/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2013 — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

50

2013/C 344/88

Case C-506/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2013 by Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 in Case T-552/11 Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

50

2013/C 344/89

Case C-508/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

51

2013/C 344/90

Case C-521/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2013 by Think Schuhwerk GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-208/12 Think Schuhwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

52

2013/C 344/91

Case C-245/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

53

2013/C 344/92

Case C-310/12: Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2013 — European Commission v Hungary

53

2013/C 344/93

Case C-544/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

53

2013/C 344/94

Case C-610/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen

53

General Court

2013/C 344/95

Case T-545/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance glyphosate — Partial refusal of access — Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person — Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Overriding public interest — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — Directive 91/414/EEC)

54

2013/C 344/96

Case T-167/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Professional development — Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group — Distortion of evidence)

54

2013/C 344/97

Case T-285/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BOOMERANG — Earlier Community figurative mark BoomerangTV — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

55

2013/C 344/98

Case T-554/11: Order of the General Court of 1 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Action for annulment — Financing by the European Union of certain projects in Tunisia, in the framework of the EuropeAid programme — Development of an integrated IT system for the Tunisian judiciary — Recovery by the Commission of debts payable to Tunisia by a third party — Debit note — Acts inseparable from the contract — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissible)

55

2013/C 344/99

Case T-153/12: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP International (SKYDRIVE) (Community trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

55

2013/C 344/00

Case T-397/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission (Interim measures — Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Regulation fixing the refunds at zero — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

56

2013/C 344/01

Case T-407/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Al Assad v Council

56

2013/C 344/02

Case T-408/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council

56

2013/C 344/03

Case T-431/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)

57

2013/C 344/04

Case T-440/13: Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Millano Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (shape of boxes of chocolates)

57

2013/C 344/05

Case T-473/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — G-Star Raw v OHIM — PepsiCo (PEPSI RAW)

57

2013/C 344/06

Case T-478/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE)

58

2013/C 344/07

Case T-480/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — You-View.tv/OHMI — YouView TV (YouView+)

58

2013/C 344/08

Case T-483/13: Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission

59

2013/C 344/09

Case T-484/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)

59

2013/C 344/10

Case T-491/13: Action brought on 11 September 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Kraft Foods Global Brands (TRIDENT PURE)

60

2013/C 344/11

Case T-494/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt)

60

2013/C 344/12

Case T-495/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (Watt)

61

2013/C 344/13

Case T-496/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — McCullough v Cedefop

61

2013/C 344/14

Case T-497/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Neuromodulation v OHIM (PRECISION SPECTRA)

62

2013/C 344/15

Case T-498/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)

62

2013/C 344/16

Case T-499/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)

63

2013/C 344/17

Case T-505/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission

63

2013/C 344/18

Case T-509/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)

64

2013/C 344/19

Case T-519/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)

65

2013/C 344/20

Case T-520/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Philip Morris Benelux/Commission

65

2013/C 344/21

Case T-527/13: Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

66

2013/C 344/22

Case T-538/13: Action brought on 10 October 2013 — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission

66

2013/C 344/23

Case T-542/13: Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

67

2013/C 344/24

Case T-544/13: Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Dyson v Commission

68

2013/C 344/25

Case T-557/12: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — RiskMetrics Solutions v OHIM — (RISKMANAGER)

68

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 344/26

Case F-116/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary agent — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Annual dialogue with the reporting officer — Setting objectives)

69

2013/C 344/27

Case F-81/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

69

2013/C 344/28

Case F-83/13: Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

69

2013/C 344/29

Case F-87/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

69

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/1

---

2013/C 344/01

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

OJ C 336, 16.11.2013

Past publications

OJ C 325, 9.11.2013

OJ C 313, 26.10.2013

OJ C 304, 19.10.2013

OJ C 298, 12.10.2013

OJ C 291, 5.10.2013

OJ C 284, 28.9.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/2

---

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2013/C 344/02

On 23 October 2013, the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Judge Madise, to amend the decision of the General Court of 17 September 2013, (1) on the assignment of Judges to Chambers.

For the period from 23 October 2013 to 31 August 2016, the assignment of Judges to Chambers is as follows:

| | First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
  :
  Mr Kanninen, Vice-President, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Gervasoni and Mr Madise, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
  :

Mr Kanninen, Vice-President, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Gervasoni and Mr Madise, Judges.

| | First Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Kanninen, Vice-President; |
| --- | --- | --- |

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, Vice-President;

| | Ms Pelikánová, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Pelikánová, Judge;

| | Mr Buttigieg, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Buttigieg, Judge.

| | Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Forwood, Mr Bieliūnas, Mr Gervasoni and Mr Madise, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Forwood, Mr Bieliūnas, Mr Gervasoni and Mr Madise, Judges.

| | Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;

| | Mr Gervasoni, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Mr Gervasoni, Judge;

| | Mr Madise, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Madise, Judge.

| | Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Mr Forwood, Ms Labucka, Mr Bieliūnas and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Mr Forwood, Ms Labucka, Mr Bieliūnas and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges.

| | Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;

| | Mr Forwood, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Mr Forwood, Judge;

| | Mr Kreuschitz, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Kreuschitz, Judge.

| | Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Prek, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges.

| | Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Prek, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Labucka, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Labucka, Judge;

| | Mr Kreuschitz, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Kreuschitz, Judge.

| | Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Collins, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Collins, Judges.

| | Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber;

| | Mr Schwarcz, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Mr Schwarcz, Judge;

| | Ms Tomljenović, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Ms Tomljenović, Judge.

| | Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Collins and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Collins and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

| | Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber;

| | Mr Dehousse, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Mr Dehousse, Judge;

| | Mr Collins, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Collins, Judge.

| | Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Kancheva, Mr Wetter and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Kancheva, Mr Wetter and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

| | Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge;

| | Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judge.

| | Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Popescu, Ms Kancheva and Mr Wetter, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Popescu, Ms Kancheva and Mr Wetter, Judges.

| | Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Kancheva, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Kancheva, Judge;

| | Mr Wetter, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Wetter, Judge.

| | Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Pelikánová, Mr Popescu and Mr Buttigieg, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Pelikánová, Mr Popescu and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

| | Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber;

| | Mr Czúcz, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Mr Czúcz, Judge;

| | Mr Popescu, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Popescu, Judge.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013, p. 2.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-189/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ - Exclusion from the special scheme of certain sales to the public - Mention in the invoice of an amount of deductible VAT not related to the input tax due or paid - Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period - Not compatible)

2013/C 344/03

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special scheme for travel agents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that






  — | by excluding from the special scheme for travel agents sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of travel services organised by wholesale agents; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that

—

by excluding from the special scheme for travel agents sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of travel services organised by wholesale agents;

| — | by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount of value added tax that is not related to the value added tax actually charged to the customer, and by authorising the customer, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the value added tax payable; and |
| --- | --- |

—

by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount of value added tax that is not related to the value added tax actually charged to the customer, and by authorising the customer, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the value added tax payable; and

| — | by authorising travel agencies, in so far as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the taxable amount for each tax period, |
| --- | --- |

—

by authorising travel agencies, in so far as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the taxable amount for each tax period,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 168, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs of the European Commission;

| 5. | Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-193/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/04

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 09.07.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Leyla Ecem Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-221/11) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Additional Protocol - Article 41(1) - ‘Standstill’ clause - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State - Freedom to provide services - The right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services)

2013/C 344/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leyla Ecem Demirkan

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to measures to be taken for their implementation (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 3) — Interpretation of the concept of ‘freedom to provide services’ in that provision — Possible inclusion of ‘passive’ freedom to provide services — Right of a Turkish national to travel to another Member State in order to visit a member of his family there and possibly to receive services

Operative part of the judgment

The notion of ‘freedom to provide services’ in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 must be interpreted as not encompassing freedom for Turkish nationals who are the recipients of services to visit a Member State in order to obtain services.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-236/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Italian Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Italian Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-267/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system - Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia - Period from 2008 to 2012)

2013/C 344/07

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and E. White, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš, acting as Agent), Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Intervener in support of Republic of Latvia: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012, under 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) — Misinterpretation of the procedure provided for in Article 9(3) of the directive — Erroneous application of the three-month time limit, laid down for initial decisions on new notified national allocation plans for greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP), to a Commission decision accepting amendments to an NAP notified following a decision on the part of the Commission to reject the initial NAP

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Latvia and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Latvia and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-269/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 06.08.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-293/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/09

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-296/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. — S. Pilczer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: The Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, Agents), the Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, Agent), the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent), the Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), the Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), the Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the French Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the French Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-309/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/11

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Placios and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents);

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Finland; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Finland;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-369/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(1) and 30(3) - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges - Infrastructure fees - Independence of infrastructure managers)

2013/C 344/12

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended, and with Articles 4(1) and (2), 14(2) and 30(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to ensure the independence of the infrastructure manager with regard to the setting of charges for access to the infrastructure and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure the independence of the infrastructure manager with regard to the setting of charges for access to the infrastructure and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Italian Republic and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Italian Republic and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon

(Case C-373/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production - Discretion granted to the Member States - Discrimination - Articles 32 EC and 34 EC)

2013/C 344/13

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou

Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 2, 32 and 34 EC — Additional payment for specific types of farming — Possibility given to the Member States to determine different proportions of the component of the national ceilings for the purposes of making the additional payment — Differences in treatment of producers of the same products according to the use made of that power by each Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck, Austria) — TEXDATA Software GmbH

(Case C-418/11) (1)

(Company law - Freedom of establishment - Eleventh Directive 89/666/EEC - Disclosure of accounting documents - Branch of a capital company established in another Member State - Pecuniary penalty in the event of failure to disclose within the prescribed period - Right to effective judicial protection - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)

2013/C 344/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

Parties to the main proceedings

TEXDATA Software GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU; the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the general principle of the right to effective legal protection; Article 6 of First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 41); Article 60a of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11); and of Article 38(6) of Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ 1983 L 193, p. 1) — Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company — Legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of failure to disclose within nine months the consolidated annual accounts to the court having jurisdiction, a pecuniary penalty is to be imposed without the bodies authorised to represent the company being given an opportunity to state their views

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to the verifications to be carried out by the referring court, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU, the principles of effective judicial protection and respect for the rights of the defence, and Article 12 of Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the statutory nine-month period for disclosing accounting documents is exceeded, a minimum periodic penalty of EUR 700 is to be imposed immediately on the capital company whose branch is located in the Member State concerned, without prior notice and without the company first being given an opportunity to state its views on the alleged breach of the disclosure obligation.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-431/11) (1)

(Coordination of social security systems - EEA Agreement - Proposal for an amendment - Council decision - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)

2013/C 344/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dashwood QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Veiga, A. De Elera and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Travers, BL)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2011/407/EU of 6 June 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2011 L 182, p. 12) — Choice of legal basis (Article 48 TFEU or Article 79 TFEU)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team4 Travel GmbH

(Case C-435/11) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Sales brochure containing false information - Treated as ‘misleading commercial practice’ - Case in which the trader cannot be criticised for any breach of the duty of diligence)

2013/C 344/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CHS Tour Services GmbH

Respondent: Team4 Travel GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Brochure containing false information — Whether or not possible for a trader to show that the requirements of professional diligence have been complied with in order to prevent a commercial practice from being categorised as ‘unfair’

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that, if a commercial practice satisfies all the criteria specified in Article 6(1) of that directive for being categorised as a misleading practice in relation to the consumer, it is not necessary to determine whether such a practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence as referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of the directive in order for it legitimately to be regarded as unfair and, therefore, prohibited in accordance with Article 5(1) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-450/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S

(Case C-476/11) (1)

(Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21(1) - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Occupational pension scheme - Increases in the amount of contributions on the basis of age)

2013/C 344/18

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen

Defendant: Experian A/S

Intervener: Beskæftigelsesministeriet

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Justification for differences of treatment on grounds of age — Fixing, for occupational social security schemes, of ages for admission or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits — General exception for occupational social security schemes provided that there is no discrimination on grounds of sex, or exception solely for affiliation to social security schemes — National legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, pension contributions which increase with the age of the employee

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 2 and 6(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding an occupational pension scheme under which an employer pays, as part of pay, pension contributions which increase with age, provided that the difference in treatment on grounds of age that arises therefrom is appropriate and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, which it is for the national court to establish.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG

(Case C-509/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Rail passengers’ rights and obligations - Article 17 - Compensation in the event of a delay - Excluded in the event of force majeure - Whether permissible - First subparagraph of Article 30(1) - Powers of the national body responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Whether it is possible to require the rail carrier to amend its conditions governing passenger compensation)

2013/C 344/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

ÖBB-Personenverkehr AG

Intervening parties: Schienen-Control Kommission, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 17 and the first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14) — Conditions governing compensation — Whether exclusion of compensation is permissible in cases of force majeure — Whether the body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may replace the contractual terms which do not meet the criteria set out in that regulation with terms which are consistent with those criteria

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may not, in the absence of any national provision to that effect, impose upon a railway undertaking whose compensation terms do not meet the criteria set out at Article 17 of that regulation the specific content of those terms. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first subparagraph of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation may not, in the absence of any national provision to that effect, impose upon a railway undertaking whose compensation terms do not meet the criteria set out at Article 17 of that regulation the specific content of those terms.

| 2. | Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a railway undertaking is not entitled to include in its general terms and conditions of carriage a clause under which it is exempt from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay where the delay is attributable to force majeure or to one of the reasons set out at Article 32(2) of the Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 17 of Regulation No 1371/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that a railway undertaking is not entitled to include in its general terms and conditions of carriage a clause under which it is exempt from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay where the delay is attributable to force majeure or to one of the reasons set out at Article 32(2) of the Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara

(Case C-539/11) (1)

(Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Opticians - Regional legislation making the establishment of new opticians’ shops subject to authorisation - Demographic and geographical limitations - Justification - Appropriateness for attaining the objective pursued - Coherency - Proportionality)

2013/C 344/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo

Defendant: Comune di Campobello di Mazara

Intervener: Fotottica Media Visione di Luppino Natale Fabrizio e. C. s.n.c.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and of Articles 2(2)(f), 4(8) and 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) — Regional legislation under which authorisation to establish new opticians’ practices is made conditional upon there being only one such practice for every 8 000 inhabitants and a minimum distance of 300 metres between one practice and the next — Restriction on the freedom to provide services — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Protection of health — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding regional legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes restrictions on the grant of authorisation for the establishment of a new optician’s shop, by providing that:

| — | in each geographical area, only one optician’s shop may be established, in principle, for every 8 000 residents, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in each geographical area, only one optician’s shop may be established, in principle, for every 8 000 residents, and

| — | each new optician’s shop must, in principle, be a minimum distance of 300 metres from an existing optician’s shop, |
| --- | --- |

—

each new optician’s shop must, in principle, be a minimum distance of 300 metres from an existing optician’s shop,

provided that the competent authorities use appropriately, in accordance with transparent and objective criteria, the powers made available under the legislation concerned, with a view to attaining, in a coherent and systematic manner, the objectives pursued by that legislation relating to the protection of public health throughout the given territory, which is a matter for the national court to assess.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard v Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet

(Case C-546/11) (1)

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Refusal to grant availability pay to civil servants who have reached the age of 65 and are entitled to a pension)

2013/C 344/21

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund, acting on behalf of Erik Toftgaard

Defendant: Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet

Interveners: Centralorganisationernes Fællesudvalg (CFU), Kommunale Tjenestemænd og Overenskomstansatte (KTO), Personalestyrelsen, Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), Danske Regioner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Art. 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Fixing of age limits for access or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits under occupational social security schemes — Discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in the event that a worker’s post ceases to exist, for compensation up to the amount of his salary for three years or until he has reached retirement age — Retirement pension paid to a worker who has reached the age of 65 whose post has ceased to exist, irrespective of his entitlement to continue working after the age of 65

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as being applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social security scheme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as being applicable only to retirement or invalidity benefits under an occupational social security scheme.

| 2. | Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of redundancy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which a civil servant who has reached the age at which he is able to receive a retirement pension is denied, solely for that reason, entitlement to availability pay intended for civil servants dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

(Case C-583/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Restrictions on importing and marketing such products - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Concept of ‘regulatory act’ - Legislative act - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

2013/C 344/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association; Jaypootie Moesesie; Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak; David Kuptana; Karliin Aariak; Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (represented by: J. Bouckaert, H. Viaene and D. Gillet, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou, D. Gauci and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, E. White and K. Mifsud Bonnici, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council whereby the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36, ‘the contested regulation’) Concept of ‘regulatory act’ — Requirement that contested regulation be of individual concern

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Ms Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Ms Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-609/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Concept - Evidence - Sworn statement - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - General Court’s powers of review - Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)

2013/C 344/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-427/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-610/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Evidence - Sworn statement - Burden of proof - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15, 51 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 40(5))

2013/C 344/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it granted the application for revocation of the CENTROTHERM mark — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM);

| 2. | Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4);

| 3. | Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV

(Case C-622/11) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 13C and 20 - Supply of immovable property - Right to opt for taxation - Right to deduction - Adjustment of deductions - Recovery of sums due following adjustment of a VAT deduction - Taxable person liable for payment - Taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction and who is extraneous to the taxed transaction which gave rise to the deduction)

2013/C 344/25

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Pactor Vastgoed BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 20 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment of deductions previously made — Supply of a property by a supplier to a real estate company — Supply dealt with by the parties, although not by the applicable legislation, as a taxable transaction

Operative part of the judgment

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the recovery of amounts due following the adjustment of a value added tax deduction from a taxable person other than the person who applied that deduction.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

(Case C-625/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 57 and 59 - Substances subject to authorisation - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Inclusion on the candidate list of substances - Publication - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Date from which that time limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet - Legal certainty - Effective judicial protection)

2013/C 344/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and B. Koopman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA, dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 30 March 2010, identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) (CAS No 79 06 1) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including acrylamide in the list of substances identified with a view to future inclusion in Annex XIV to that regulation (list of substances subject to authorisation), in accordance with Article 59 thereof — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Act published only on the internet

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA;

| 2. | Refers the present case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the present case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-626/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 57 and 59 - Substances subject to authorisation - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Inclusion on the candidate list of substances - Publication of the list on the ECHA website - Action for annulment brought prior to that publication - Admissibility)

2013/C 344/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and B. Koopman, Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, extended composition) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v ECHA dismissing as inadmissible an action for the annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 December 2009, identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation — Act subject to review

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA;

| 2. | Refers the present case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the present case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

(Case C-661/11) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5 - Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark - Consent given in a situation where there is shared use - Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark)

2013/C 344/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin y Paz Diffusion SA

Defendants: David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Proprietor’s rights over a registered mark where there is an extended period of sharing the use of the mark with a third party in a form of co-ownership for part of the goods covered and irrevocable consent given by the proprietor to that third party to use of that mark — National rule prohibiting the proprietor of the mark from making wrongful or abusive use of its right — Prohibition of use of the mark by the proprietor to the detriment of the third party — Penalty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, precludes a proprietor of trade marks which, in a situation where there has been use shared with a third party, had consented to the use by that third party of signs which are identical to its marks in respect of certain goods in classes for which those marks are registered and which no longer consents to that use, from being deprived of any possibility of asserting the exclusive right conferred upon it by those marks against that third party and of itself exercising that exclusive right in respect of goods which are identical to those of that third party.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-668/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Obligation to state reasons - Mitigating circumstances)

2013/C 344/29

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International, Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, Abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-38/05 Agroexpansion v Commission, by which the General Court rejected, in part, an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B2 — Raw tobacco — Spain)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-679/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Whether unlawful conduct of a subsidiary attributable to its parent company - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Unlimited jurisdiction - Ne ultra petita - Right to a fair hearing)

2013/C 344/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alliance One International Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier, J. Bourke and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-41/05 Alliance One International v Commission reducing the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. was held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, and dismissing as to the remainder an application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco sector in Spain) concerning a cartel aimed at fixing the prices paid to producers and the quantities purchased from them in the Spanish raw tobacco market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders Alliance One International Inc. to pay the costs of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alliance One International Inc. to pay the costs of the appeal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Lleida — Spain) — Marc Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-5/12) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 8 - Maternity leave - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Article 2(1) and (3) - Right to leave for employed mothers after the birth of a child - Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father - Non-employed mother who is not covered by a State social security scheme - No right to leave for employed father - Biological father and adoptive father - Principle of equal treatment)

2013/C 344/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Lleida

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marc Betriu Montull

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Lleida — Interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — National legislation granting six weeks of breastfeeding leave to mothers after giving birth — Right to leave of employed fathers — Conditions — National legislation providing for the right of employed fathers who adopt a child, but not those who have a child by birth, to suspend their contract of employment and to return to the same job, paid for by the social security system — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directives 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the father of a child, who is an employed person, is entitled, with the consent of the mother, who is also an employed person, to take maternity leave for the period following the compulsory leave of six weeks which the mother must take after childbirth except where her health would be at risk, whereas a father of a child who is an employed person is not entitled to take such leave where the mother of his child is not an employed person and is not covered by a State social security scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.03.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/19

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

(Case C-32/12) (1)

(Directive 1999/44/EC - Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product - Minor nature of that lack of conformity - Rescission of the contract not possible - Powers of the national courts)

2013/C 344/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

Defendants: Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Badajoz — Interpretation of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Rights of the consumer — Product with a minor lack of conformity — No repair of that product — Application for rescission of the sale — Not permissible — No alternative claim seeking an appropriate reduction in the price — Whether a national court can consider of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the national court hearing the dispute to grant of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price of goods which are the subject of a contract of sale in the case where a consumer who is entitled to such a reduction brings proceedings which are limited to seeking only rescission of that contract and such rescission cannot be granted because the lack of conformity in those goods is minor, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) v European Commission, Lexmark International Technology SA

(Case C-56/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Ink cartridge market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Lack of Community interest - Low probability of proving the existence of an infringement of Article 82 EC - Degree of seriousness of the infringement alleged)

2013/C 344/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtanswalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, Rechtsanwalt), Lexmark International Technology SA

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T-296/09 EFIM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C-3/39.391 concerning alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges — Powers of the Commission — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints — No Community interest — Proportionality — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Commission Notice on the handling of complaints

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

(Case C-59/12) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope - Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system - Fund established as a public law body)

2013/C 344/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of the same directive — Scope — ‘Commercial practices’ and ‘trader’ — Advertisements of a statutory health insurance fund containing misleading information in relation to the drawbacks flowing from a potential change of health insurance fund for its clients.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted to the effect that a public law body charged with a task of public interest, such as the management of a statutory health insurance fund, falls within the persons covered by the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

(Case C-86/12) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor children - Union citizens born in a Member State other than that of which they are nationals and who have not made use of their right of freedom of movement - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 344/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adzo Domenyo Alokpa, Jarel Moudoulou, Eja Moudoulou

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and of Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is the direct ascendant of infants who are citizens of the European Union, with the nationality of one of the Member States, and for whom he or she has sole responsibility — No shared family life with another direct ascendant of the children, who is resident in another Member State — Scope of the refusals to allow residence, to grant a residence permit and to grant a work permit — Implications for the genuine enjoyment of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the Union

Operative part of the judgment

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third-country national to reside in its territory, where that third-country national has sole responsibility for her minor children who are citizens of the European Union, and who have resided with her in that Member State since their birth, without possessing the nationality of that Member State and making use of their right to freedom of movement, in so far as those Union citizens do not satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, or such a refusal does not deprive those citizens of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of the status of European Union citizenship, a matter which is to be determined by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI v Provincia di Fermo

(Case C-94/12) (1)

(Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Economic and financial standing - Technical and/or professional ability - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Right of an economic operator to rely on the capacities of other entities - Article 52 - Certification system - Public works contracts - National legislation requiring possession of a qualification certificate corresponding to the category and the value of the works covered by the contract - Prohibition on reliance on the certificates of more than one entity for works within the same category)

2013/C 344/36

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI

Defendant: Provincia di Fermo

Intervening party: Torelli Dottori SpA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Interpretation of Article 47(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Economic and financial standing of the economic operator — Right to rely on the capacities of other entities — National legislation limiting that right to one other entity for each qualification category required by the certification body

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 44(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits, as a general rule, economic operators participating in a tendering procedure for a public works contract from relying on the capacities of more than one undertaking for the same qualification category.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Laboratoires Lyocentre v Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

(Case C-109/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product for human use a product marketed in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking - Applicable procedure)

2013/C 344/37

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Laboratoires Lyocentre

Respondents: Lääkealan turvallisuus– ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali– ja terveysalan lupa– ja valvontavirasto

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Vaginal preparation containing live lactobacilli — Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product within the meaning of Directive 2001/83, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effects, a preparation marketed in another Member State as a medical device with a CE marking within the meaning of Directive 93/42 — Applicable procedure

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The classification of a product in one Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking, in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, does not preclude the competent authorities of another Member State from classifying the same product, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, as a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The classification of a product in one Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking, in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, does not preclude the competent authorities of another Member State from classifying the same product, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, as a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006.

| 2. | In order to classify as a medicinal product in accordance with Directive 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1901/2006, a product already classified in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking, in accordance with Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, the competent authorities of a Member State must, before applying the classification procedure under Directive 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1901/2006, apply the procedure under Article 18 of Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, and, where appropriate, the procedure under Article 8 of Directive 93/42. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In order to classify as a medicinal product in accordance with Directive 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1901/2006, a product already classified in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking, in accordance with Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, the competent authorities of a Member State must, before applying the classification procedure under Directive 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1901/2006, apply the procedure under Article 18 of Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, and, where appropriate, the procedure under Article 8 of Directive 93/42.

| 3. | Within the same Member State, a product which, while not identical to another product classified as a medicinal product, none the less has in common with it an identical substance and the same mode of action, cannot, in principle, be marketed as a medical device in accordance with Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, unless, as a result of another characteristic that is specific to that product and relevant for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42, it must be classified and marketed as a medical device, which is a matter for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Within the same Member State, a product which, while not identical to another product classified as a medicinal product, none the less has in common with it an identical substance and the same mode of action, cannot, in principle, be marketed as a medical device in accordance with Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, unless, as a result of another characteristic that is specific to that product and relevant for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42, it must be classified and marketed as a medical device, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency

(Case C-113/12) (1)

(Environment - Directive 75/442/EEC - Slurry produced in a piggery and stored there pending its transfer to farmers who use it as fertiliser on their land - Classification as ‘waste’ or ‘by-product’ - Conditions - Burden of proof - Directive 91/676/EEC - Failure to transpose - Personal liability of the producer as to compliance by those farmers with European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers)

2013/C 344/38

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Donal Brady

Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Concept of ‘waste’ — Pig slurry supplied by a pig farmer to farmers as fertiliser — Right of a Member State to impose personal liability on the pig farmer in the event of failure by farmers using his slurry as fertiliser on their land to comply with European Union law on the control of waste

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that slurry produced in an intensive pig farm and stored pending delivery to farmers in order to be used by them as fertiliser on their land constitutes not ‘waste’ within the meaning of that provision but a by-product when that producer intends to market the slurry on terms economically advantageous to himself in a subsequent process, provided that such reuse is not a mere possibility but a certainty, without any further processing prior to reuse and as part of the continuing process of production. It is for the national courts to determine, taking account of all the relevant circumstances obtaining in the situations before them, whether those various criteria are satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that slurry produced in an intensive pig farm and stored pending delivery to farmers in order to be used by them as fertiliser on their land constitutes not ‘waste’ within the meaning of that provision but a by-product when that producer intends to market the slurry on terms economically advantageous to himself in a subsequent process, provided that such reuse is not a mere possibility but a certainty, without any further processing prior to reuse and as part of the continuing process of production. It is for the national courts to determine, taking account of all the relevant circumstances obtaining in the situations before them, whether those various criteria are satisfied.

| 2. | European Union law does not preclude the burden of proving that the criteria for finding that a substance such as the slurry produced, stored and transferred in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings constitutes a by-product are met from resting on the producer of that slurry, provided that this does not result in the effectiveness of European Union law, and in particular of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, being undermined and that compliance with the obligations flowing from European Union law is ensured, in particular the obligation not to make subject to the provisions of that directive substances which, on application of those criteria, must, under the Court’s case-law, be regarded as by-products to which the directive does not apply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Union law does not preclude the burden of proving that the criteria for finding that a substance such as the slurry produced, stored and transferred in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings constitutes a by-product are met from resting on the producer of that slurry, provided that this does not result in the effectiveness of European Union law, and in particular of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, being undermined and that compliance with the obligations flowing from European Union law is ensured, in particular the obligation not to make subject to the provisions of that directive substances which, on application of those criteria, must, under the Court’s case-law, be regarded as by-products to which the directive does not apply.

| 3. | Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, must be interpreted as meaning that, where Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources has not been transposed into the law of a Member State, livestock effluent produced while operating a pig farm located in that Member State cannot be considered to be, by virtue of the existence of the latter directive, ‘covered by other legislation’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, must be interpreted as meaning that, where Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources has not been transposed into the law of a Member State, livestock effluent produced while operating a pig farm located in that Member State cannot be considered to be, by virtue of the existence of the latter directive, ‘covered by other legislation’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 4. | In a situation where slurry produced and held by a pig farm is to be classified as ‘waste’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350:






  — | Article 8 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding the holder from being authorised, under any conditions, to transfer that waste to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land if it transpires that that farmer neither possesses the permit referred to in Article 10 of the directive nor is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and registered in accordance with Article 11 of the directive; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In a situation where slurry produced and held by a pig farm is to be classified as ‘waste’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350:

—

Article 8 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding the holder from being authorised, under any conditions, to transfer that waste to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land if it transpires that that farmer neither possesses the permit referred to in Article 10 of the directive nor is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and registered in accordance with Article 11 of the directive; and

| — | Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the directive, read together, must be interpreted as precluding the transfer of that waste by the holder to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land, and who possesses a permit as referred to in Article 10 or is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and is registered in accordance with Article 11, from being subject to the condition that the holder assumes liability for compliance by that other farmer with the rules that are to apply to the recovery operations carried out by the latter by virtue of European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the directive, read together, must be interpreted as precluding the transfer of that waste by the holder to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land, and who possesses a permit as referred to in Article 10 or is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and is registered in accordance with Article 11, from being subject to the condition that the holder assumes liability for compliance by that other farmer with the rules that are to apply to the recovery operations carried out by the latter by virtue of European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission

(Case C-115/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique - Reduction of financial assistance - Public works contracts - Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’)

2013/C 344/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard and N. Rouam, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document in respect of objective 1 for Community structural assistance in the French region of Martinique — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’ — Errors of law — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS

(Case C-120/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

2013/C 344/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09 Rintisch v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of national word and figurative marks ‘PROTI’, ‘PROTIPOWER’ and ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32, and the national trade name ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32, against decision R 740/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 15 December 2008, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed by the applicant in respect of registration of the word mark ‘PROTI SNACK’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

(Case C-121/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

2013/C 344/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by: F. Baujoin, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1660/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIVITAL’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

(Case C-122/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

2013/C 344/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (represented by F. Baujoin, avocate)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09 Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires, by which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the proprietor of certain national and Community word marks, a national figurative mark and a business name containing the word ‘PROTI’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, for the annulment of Decision R 1661/2007-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 February 2009, which had dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by Mr Rintisch against registration of the word mark ‘PROTIACTIVE’ in respect of goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey

(Case C-140/12) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Union Citizenship - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence for more than three months - Article 7(1)(b) - Person no longer having worker status - Person in possession of a retirement pension - Having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the ‘social assistance system’ of the host Member State - Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit - Compensatory supplement intended to augment a retirement pension - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 3(2) and 70 - Competence of the Member State of residence - Conditions for granting - Legal right to reside on the national territory - Compliance with European Union law)

2013/C 344/43

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Defendant: Peter Brey

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77), as amended — Right of a citizen of the European Union who has ceased his professional activity to reside for more than three months in the territory of another Member State — Situation in which that citizen receives a retirement pension which is below the minimum subsistence level of the host Member State and has, for that reason, requested that he be granted a compensatory supplement (‘Ausgleichszulage’), which is a special non-contributory cash benefit

Operative part of the judgment

EU law — in particular, as it results from Article 7(1)(b), Article 8(4) and Article 24(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC — must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, even as regards the period following the first three months of residence, automatically — whatever the circumstances — bars the grant of a benefit, such as the compensatory supplement provided for in Paragraph 292(1) of the Federal Act on General Social Insurance (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz), as amended, from 1 January 2011, by the 2011 Budget Act (Budgetbegleitgesetzes 2011), to a national of another Member State who is not economically active, on the grounds that, despite having been issued with a certificate of residence, he does not meet the necessary requirements for obtaining the legal right to reside on the territory of the first Member State for a period of longer than three months, since obtaining that right of residence is conditional upon that national having sufficient resources not to apply for the benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA

(Case C-157/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(3) and (4) - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)

2013/C 344/44

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation in which that decision is irreconcilable with another judgment given previously in the same Member State between the same parties, with the same subject matter and same cause of action

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG

(Case C-170/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict - Copyright - Material support reproducing a protected work - Placing on line - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

2013/C 344/45

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Pinckney

Defendant: KDG Mediatech AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the national court in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Criteria for determining the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Infringement of copyright caused by the placing on-line of dematerialised content or a material carrier medium reproducing the content — Content directed at the public

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the Member State of the court seised, the latter has jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another Member State and which has, in the latter State, reproduced that work on a material support which is subsequently sold by companies established in a third Member State through an internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which it is situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v European Commission, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA

(Case C-172/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Joint control by two parent companies - Decisive influence - Joint and several liability - Limitation period - Legitimate interest)

2013/C 344/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Biolan, acting as Agents), DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC, DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-76/08 EI du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission, in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel in the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Joint venture — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/28

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission

(Case C-179/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Joint control by two parent companies - Decisive influence - Rights of defence - Increase in the fine - Deterrent effect)

2013/C 344/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Dow Chemical Company (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, V. Bottka and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08 The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission in which that Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber) concerning a cartel on the market for chloroprene rubber in the European Economic Area (EEA), relating to market-sharing and price-fixing, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — Joint venture — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/28

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA v Région wallonne

(Case C-195/12) (1)

(Directive 2004/8/EC - Scope - Cogeneration and high efficiency cogeneration - Article 7 - Regional support scheme providing for the grant of ‘green certificates’ to cogeneration plants - Grant of a larger number of green certificates to cogeneration plants processing principally forms of biomass other than wood or wood waste - Principle of equality and non-discrimination - Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

2013/C 344/48

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA

Defendant: Région wallonne

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionelle — Interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC (OJ 2004 L 52, p. 50) — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33) — Interpretation of Article 22 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16) — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Financial support schemes limited to high-efficiency cogeneration plants — Obligation, authorisation or prohibition of excluding from support cogeneration plants using principally wood or wood waste — Conformity of legislation with the principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that its scope is not limited solely to cogeneration plants which are high efficiency cogeneration plants within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that its scope is not limited solely to cogeneration plants which are high efficiency cogeneration plants within the meaning of that directive.

| 2. | In the present state of European Union law, the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination laid down in particular in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude the Member States, when introducing national support schemes for cogeneration and electricity production from renewable energy sources, such as those referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2004/8 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, from providing for an enhanced support measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings capable of benefiting all cogeneration plants principally using biomass with the exclusion of cogeneration plants principally using wood and/or wood waste. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the present state of European Union law, the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination laid down in particular in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude the Member States, when introducing national support schemes for cogeneration and electricity production from renewable energy sources, such as those referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2004/8 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, from providing for an enhanced support measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings capable of benefiting all cogeneration plants principally using biomass with the exclusion of cogeneration plants principally using wood and/or wood waste.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

(Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg - Grant of a parental leave allowance - Concept of a ‘family benefit’)

2013/C 344/49

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

Respondents: Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex II to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, concluded on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Concept of a ‘family benefit’ — Permissibility of national legislation providing for the grant of a parental leave allowance — Swiss national residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a parental leave allowance, such as the allowance provided for under Luxembourg legislation, constitutes a ‘family benefit’ within the meaning of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels — Belgium) — Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA v Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA

(Case C-251/12) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Article 24(1) - Honouring an obligation ‘for the benefit of a debtor that is subject to insolvency proceedings’ - Payment made to a creditor of that debtor)

2013/C 344/50

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce, Brussels

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Van Buggenhout and Ilse Van de Mierop, acting as liquidators in the insolvency of Grontimmo SA

Defendant: Banque Internationale à Luxembourg SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Payment made to a creditor of the insolvent debtor, at the request of the latter, in the absence of publication of the decision opening insolvency proceedings in another Member State — Discharge of agent acting in good faith — The scope rationae personae — Definition of ‘for the benefit of the debtor’ including solely payments made to the insolvent debtor or also payments made to its creditors

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that a payment made at the behest of a debtor subject to insolvency proceedings to one of the latter’s creditors does not fall within the scope of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/30

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-282/12) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Interest paid by a resident company on funds lent by a company established in a non-member country - Existence of ‘special relations’ between those companies - Thin capitalisation rules - No right of deduction in relation to interest on the part of the overall debt regarded as excessive - Interest deductible if paid to a company resident in the national territory - Tax evasion and avoidance - Wholly artificial arrangements - Arm’s length terms - Proportionality)

2013/C 344/51

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ITELCAR — Automóveis de Aluguer Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) — Interpretation of Article 63 TFEU and Article 65 TFEU — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest deductible on borrowing — National rules providing for deduction in the case of excessive indebtedness to a company established in the national territory but not in the case of excessive indebtedness to a company established in a non-member country

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of rules of a Member State which provide that, where interest applied to the part of an overall debt categorised as excessive has been paid by a resident company to a lending company established in a non-member country with which the borrowing company has special relations, it is not deductible as an expense for the purposes of determining taxable profit, but where such interest is paid to a resident lending company with which the borrowing company has special relations, it is deductible for those purposes, those rules are precluded where, if the lending company established in a non-member country does not have a shareholding in the resident borrowing company, they nevertheless presume that the overall debt owed by the borrowing company forms part of an arrangement designed to avoid the tax normally payable or where they do not make it possible, at the outset, to determine their scope with sufficient precision.

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/30

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-283/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 - Chargeable event - Reciprocal supplies of services - Transactions for consideration - Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services - Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property)

2013/C 344/52

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serebryannay vek EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Legislation under which, in the case of non-pecuniary remuneration of a supplier, the consideration for his services consists of another supply of services — Whether a transaction is to be classified as an exchange of services or not — If not, whether the improvement and furnishing of immoveable property may be classified as a taxable transaction — Occurrence of the chargeable event and rule for determining the basis of assessment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services to fit out and furnish an apartment must be regarded as having been carried out for consideration if, under a contract concluded with the owner of that apartment, the supplier of those services, first, undertakes to carry out that supply of services at its own expense and, secondly, obtains the right to have that apartment at its disposal in order to use it for its business activities during the term of that contract, without being required to pay rent, whereas the owner recovers the improved apartment at the end of that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/31

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani

(Case C-297/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 11(2) - Return decision coupled with an entry ban - Length of the entry ban restricted to five years in principle - National legislation providing for an entry ban of unlimited duration in the absence of an application for a limitation - Article 2(2)(b) - Third-country nationals subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction - Non-application of the directive)

2013/C 344/53

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Laufen

Parties to the criminal proceedings

Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Laufen — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(b) and 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Prohibition on entry into national territory, linked to a return decision — Maximum duration of that entry ban — National law which provides for a prohibition on entry into national territory of an unlimited duration for foreigners who were the subject of an expulsion order and which makes the infringement of that entry ban subject to a fine or sentence of up to three years imprisonment — Late transposition of the directive — Direct effect of its provisions — Possibility, under national law, to apply for the effects of the entry ban to be limited in time — Length of the entry ban restricted, in that case, to five years, subject to the absence of a criminal conviction or any threat to public order and public security — Third-country nationals who were the subject of an expulsion order made more than five years previously

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 11(1) of the Law on the residence, gainful employment and integration of foreign nationals on Federal territory (Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet), which makes the limitation of the length of an entry ban subject to the making by the third-country national concerned of an application seeking to obtain the benefit of such a limit. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 11(1) of the Law on the residence, gainful employment and integration of foreign nationals on Federal territory (Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet), which makes the limitation of the length of an entry ban subject to the making by the third-country national concerned of an application seeking to obtain the benefit of such a limit.

| 2. | Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding breach of an entry and residence ban in the territory of a Member State, which was handed down more than five years before the date either of the re-entry into that territory of the third-country national concerned or of the entry into force of the national legislation implementing that directive, from giving rise to a criminal sanction, unless that national constitutes a serious threat to public order, public security or national security. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding breach of an entry and residence ban in the territory of a Member State, which was handed down more than five years before the date either of the re-entry into that territory of the third-country national concerned or of the entry into force of the national legislation implementing that directive, from giving rise to a criminal sanction, unless that national constitutes a serious threat to public order, public security or national security.

| 3. | Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing that an expulsion or removal order which predates by five years or more the period between the date on which that directive should have been implemented and the date on which it was implemented, may subsequently be used as a basis for criminal proceedings, where that order was based on a criminal law sanction within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that directive and where that Member State exercised the discretion provided for under that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing that an expulsion or removal order which predates by five years or more the period between the date on which that directive should have been implemented and the date on which it was implemented, may subsequently be used as a basis for criminal proceedings, where that order was based on a criminal law sanction within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that directive and where that Member State exercised the discretion provided for under that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/32

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne v Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

(Case C-298/12) (1)

(Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Calculation of payment entitlement - Setting the reference amount - Reference period - Article 40(1), (2) and (5) - Exceptional circumstances - Farmers under agri-environmental commitments according to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 and Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Determination of the right to revalorisation of the reference amount - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Equal treatment between farmers)

2013/C 344/54

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confédération paysanne

Defendant: Ministre de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (France) — Interpretation of Article 40(1), (2) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Income support for farmers — Single payment scheme — Determination of reference amount — Reference period — Effect of agri-environmental commitments — Calculation of the right to revalorisation based, not on reduction of production, but on the amount of aid received during a reference period — Final date for taking agri-environmental commitments into account — Equality of treatment as between farmers

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2008 of 9 October 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the reference period, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 2078/92 of the Council of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and (EC) No 1257/1999 of the Council of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of the calendar year or years in the reference period which were not affected by those commitments.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1009/2008 of 9 October 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the reference period, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 2078/92 of the Council of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and (EC) No 1257/1999 of the Council of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of the calendar year or years in the reference period which were not affected by those commitments.;

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 1009/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the period 1997-2002, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulation No 2078/92 and Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2223/2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competition distortions, which it is for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 40(5) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 1009/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer, by the mere fact of having been subject, during the period 1997-2002, to agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Regulation No 2078/92 and Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2223/2004, is entitled to request that his reference amount be calculated on the basis of objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competition distortions, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/32

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA

(Case C-306/12) (1)

(Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 21(5) - Claims representative - Authority to accept service of judicial documents - National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept it - Interpretation in conformity with Union law)

2013/C 344/55

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Spedition Welter GmbH

Respondent: Avanssur SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Saarbrücken — Interpretation of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Claims representative — Service on the claims representative of proceedings brought by the injured party against the insurance undertaking — National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept service — Direct effect of the abovementioned provision of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the claims representative’s sufficient powers must include authority validly to accept service of judicial documents necessary for proceedings for settlement of a claim to be brought before the court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the claims representative’s sufficient powers must include authority validly to accept service of judicial documents necessary for proceedings for settlement of a claim to be brought before the court having jurisdiction.

| 2. | In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, where national legislation has reproduced word for word the provisions of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103, the referring court is required, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, to interpret national law in a way that is compatible with the interpretation given to the directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, where national legislation has reproduced word for word the provisions of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103, the referring court is required, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, to interpret national law in a way that is compatible with the interpretation given to the directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg

(Case C-317/12) (1)

(Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to install recording equipment - Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods - Concept - Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)

2013/C 344/56

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Party in the main criminal proceedings

Daniel Lundberg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 concerning the interpretation of the concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ within the meaning of Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Derogation from the obligation to install and use a tachograph on board vehicles weighing less than 7.5 tonnes — Carriage of goods for non-commercial purposes — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from private individuals or from companies

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ laid down in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as covering the carriage of goods by a private individual for his own purposes purely as part of his hobby where that hobby is in part financed by financial contributions from external persons or undertakings and where no payment is made for that carriage per se.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen

(Case C-321/12) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 28(2)(b) - Sickness insurance benefits - Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States - Residence in another Member State - Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence - Burden of the cost of benefits - Member State ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time - Concept)

2013/C 344/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F. van der Helder, D. Farrington

Defendant: College voor zorgverzekeringen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Sickness insurance — Benefits for pensioners resident in a Member State other than that of the competent institution — Benefits to be paid by the institution of the Member State in which the person concerned has been covered for the longest period — Concept of ‘legislation [to which] the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time, for the purpose of that provision, refers to legislation concerning pensions.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/34

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA

(Case C-322/12) (1)

(Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Article 2(3) - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Article 2(5) - Obligation to depart from that principle - Article 32 - Valuation method based on historical cost - Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)

2013/C 344/58

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendant: GIMLE SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition price of assets not reflecting their real value and giving a distorted view of the company’s assets — Obligation to depart from the rule that assets are to be entered in the accounts at their acquisition cost and to recognise them immediately as having their resale value

Operative part of the judgment

The principle that a true and fair view must be given, set out in Article 2(3) to (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, does not permit the principle of valuation of assets on the basis of their acquisition price or their production cost, contained in Article 32 of that directive, to be departed from in favour of a valuation on the basis of their real value, where the acquisition price or the production cost of those assets is manifestly lower than their real value.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/34

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S

(Case C-336/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Principle of equal treatment - Restricted procedure - Contract notice - Requirement for a copy of the most recent published balance sheet to be enclosed with the application - Copies of balance sheets not enclosed with some candidates’ applications - Right of the contracting authority to ask those candidates to provide copies of those balance sheets after the deadline for filing applications)

2013/C 344/59

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser

Defendant: Manova A/S

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Annex IIB to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Principle of equal treatment — Contracting authority which has made success at the screening stage conditional upon candidates filing copies of their most recent balance sheets — Request from that contracting authority for candidates which have not enclosed copies of their most recent balance sheets with their screening applications to provide copies of the balance sheets even though the deadline for filing the applications has passed

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding a contracting authority from asking a candidate, after the deadline for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, to provide documents describing that candidate’s situation — such as a copy of its published balance sheet — which can be objectively shown to pre-date that deadline, so long as it was not expressly laid down in the contract documents that, unless such documents were provided, the application would be rejected. That request must not unduly favour or disadvantage the candidate or candidates to which it is addressed.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/35

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-353/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for Ixfin SpA - Aid which is illegal and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Non-performance)

2013/C 344/60

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and E. De Giovanni, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2009) 8123 of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA (OJ 2010 L 167, p. 39) — Obligation to recover immediately aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to inform the Commission thereof — Insolvent undertaking — Implementation not absolutely impossible

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover from Ixfin SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/359/EC of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA, and by not having submitted to the European Commission, within the period prescribed, the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover from Ixfin SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/359/EC of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA, and by not having submitted to the European Commission, within the period prescribed, the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/35

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings initiated by Siegfried János Schneider

(Case C-386/12) (1)

(Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Legal capacity of natural persons - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Scope - Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State)

2013/C 344/61

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Siegfried János Schneider

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sofiyski gradski sad — Interpretation of Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Natural person lacking full legal capacity in accordance with the law of his Member State — Application submitted by that person in another Member State, with his guardian’s approval, for permission to sell immovable property inherited in that State — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated — Whether Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 applies in non-contentious proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and, in particular, Article 22(1) thereof must be interpreted as not applying to non-contentious proceedings by which a national of a Member State who has been declared to be lacking full legal capacity and placed under guardianship in accordance with the law of that State applies to a court in another Member State for authorisation to sell his share of a property situated in that other Member State, in view of the fact that such proceedings are concerned with the ‘legal capacity of natural persons’ for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, a matter which falls outside the material scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/36

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-492/12) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Dental profession - Specific nature and distinction from the medical profession - Common training)

2013/C 344/62

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État France

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

Defendants: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Intervening party: Conseil national de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 36 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — Specific and distinctive nature of the profession of dental practitioner compared with the medical profession — Validity of national legislation introducing university training common to medical and dental students — Validity of legislation leading to the practice of the same specialty by doctors and dentists

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | (a) | Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding the creation, by a Member State, of a specialised training course, either in the field of medicine or that of dentistry, the title of which does not correspond to those listed, in respect of that Member State, in Annex V to that directive. Such a specialised course may be open both to persons who have completed only a basic medical training course and to those who have completed and validated only studies in the context of a basic dental training course. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding the creation, by a Member State, of a specialised training course, either in the field of medicine or that of dentistry, the title of which does not correspond to those listed, in respect of that Member State, in Annex V to that directive. Such a specialised course may be open both to persons who have completed only a basic medical training course and to those who have completed and validated only studies in the context of a basic dental training course.

| (b) | It is for the national court to verify:






  — | whether that specialised training course, in so far as it does not fulfil the requirements laid down by Articles 23 and 24 of the directive regarding basic medical and dental training, does not lead to the issuing of evidence of basic medical training or evidence of basic dental training, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

It is for the national court to verify:

—

whether that specialised training course, in so far as it does not fulfil the requirements laid down by Articles 23 and 24 of the directive regarding basic medical and dental training, does not lead to the issuing of evidence of basic medical training or evidence of basic dental training, and

| — | whether the qualification awarded following the completion of that specialised training course does not authorise the practice of the core medical or dental profession by persons who do not possess evidence of formal qualifications in basic medical training or evidence of formal qualifications in basic dental training. |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the qualification awarded following the completion of that specialised training course does not authorise the practice of the core medical or dental profession by persons who do not possess evidence of formal qualifications in basic medical training or evidence of formal qualifications in basic dental training.

| 2. | Directive 2005/36, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, must be interpreted as not precluding medical subjects from forming part of a specialised training course in dentistry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2005/36, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, must be interpreted as not precluding medical subjects from forming part of a specialised training course in dentistry.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/36

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Guido Strack

(Case C-579/12 RX-II) (1)

(Review of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/11 P - Civil service - Commission decision refusing to carry over paid annual leave not taken by an official during the reference period because of long term sick leave - Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - Principle of the social law of the European Union - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effect on the unity and consistency of European Union law)

2013/C 344/63

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack

Re:

Review of the judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack adversely affects the unity and consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court, disregarding the right to paid annual leave as a principle of the social law of the European Union also expressly affirmed by Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, referred to by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union:






  — | interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack adversely affects the unity and consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court, disregarding the right to paid annual leave as a principle of the social law of the European Union also expressly affirmed by Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, referred to by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

—

interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and

| — | consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.

| 2. | Sets aside that judgment of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside that judgment of the General Court of the European Union.

| 3. | Dismisses the appeal brought by the European Commission against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the appeal brought by the European Commission against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission.

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs which Mr Strack incurred both in the review proceedings and in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs which Mr Strack incurred both in the review proceedings and in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

| 5. | Declares that the Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs incurred in the review proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Declares that the Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs incurred in the review proceedings.

| 6. | Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/37

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-573/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible - Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 344/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and B. Driessen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-452/10 ClientEarth v Council, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council of 26 July 2010 refusing to allow the applicant full access to an opinion drafted by the Council Legal Service (document No 6865/09) regarding a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning public access to documents of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | ClientEarth shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ClientEarth shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/38

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo v European Commission

(Case C-34/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Action for damages - Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure - Prejudicial statements - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 344/65

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine and Others v Commission, by which the General Court rejected in part an action for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as the result of the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of false information which, inter alia, adversely affected the image and reputation of Idromacchine in Commission Decision C(2002) 5426 final of 30 December 2004, ‘State aid — Italy — Extension of the 3-year delivery limit for a chemical tanker — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) [EC]’ — Duty of care — Breach of the rights of the defence — Absence of grounds

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo and Roberto Capuzzo shall jointly and severally pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo and Roberto Capuzzo shall jointly and severally pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/38

---

Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-356/13)

2013/C 344/66

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing adequately to define the waters liable to be polluted by nitrates from agricultural sources, and by insufficiently designating vulnerable zones, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 3 of, in conjunction with Annex I to, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing adequately to define the waters liable to be polluted by nitrates from agricultural sources, and by insufficiently designating vulnerable zones, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 3 of, in conjunction with Annex I to, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; (1)

| — | declare that, by establishing action programmes, within the terms of Article 5 of Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, on the basis of inadequately designated specific vulnerable zones, and by including in those programmes measures demonstrating deficiencies in the light of Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3 to, that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by establishing action programmes, within the terms of Article 5 of Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, on the basis of inadequately designated specific vulnerable zones, and by including in those programmes measures demonstrating deficiencies in the light of Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3 to, that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland was under an obligation to complete transposition of Directive 91/676/EEC and to comply with the obligations resulting therefrom from the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2013 — Ilona Baradics and Others v QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam

(Case C-430/13)

2013/C 344/67

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ilona Baradics, Adrienn Bóta, Éva Emberné Stál, Lászlóné György, Sándor Halász, Zita Harászi, Zsanett Hideg, Katalin Holtsuk, Gábor Jancsó, Mária Katona, Gergely Kezdi, Dr. László Korpás, Ferencné Kovács, Viola Kőrösi, Tamás Kuzsel, Attila Lajtai, Zsolt Lőrincz, Ákos Nagy, Attiláné Papp, Zsuzsanna Peller, Ágnes Petkovics, László Pongó, Zsolt Porpáczy, Zsuzsanna Rávai, László Román, Zsolt Schneck, Mihály Szabó, Péter Szabó, Zoltán Szalai, Erika Szemeréné Radó, Dr. Zsuzsanna Szigeti, Nikolett Szőke, Péter Tóth, Zsófia Várkonyi, Mónika Veres

Respondents: QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam

Questions referred

| 1. | Has the national legislature properly complied with Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 90/314/EEC, (1) that is to say, has it ensured effective protection for individuals in the event of insolvency on the part of travel organisers or retailers, in so far as it has made provision that the value of the financial security provided by the travel organiser or retailer is to be adjusted to a set percentage of anticipated net revenues from the sale of the tourist package or to a minimum amount? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the national legislature properly complied with Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 90/314/EEC, (1) that is to say, has it ensured effective protection for individuals in the event of insolvency on the part of travel organisers or retailers, in so far as it has made provision that the value of the financial security provided by the travel organiser or retailer is to be adjusted to a set percentage of anticipated net revenues from the sale of the tourist package or to a minimum amount?

| 2. | In so far as it may be found that there is an infringement on the part of the State, is that infringement sufficiently serious as to entail liability for damage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as it may be found that there is an infringement on the part of the State, is that infringement sufficiently serious as to entail liability for damage?

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2013 — Croce Amica One Italia Srl v Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU)

(Case C-440/13)

2013/C 344/68

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Croce Amica One Italia Srl

Defendant: Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it consistent with Community law for it to be permissible for a contracting authority, in the exercise of its power to withdraw a decision in relation to a public procurement procedure pursuant to Article 21d of Law No 241/1990, to decide not to proceed with the final award of the contract merely because criminal investigations are pending vis-à-vis the legal representative of the company to which the provisional award was made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it consistent with Community law for it to be permissible for a contracting authority, in the exercise of its power to withdraw a decision in relation to a public procurement procedure pursuant to Article 21d of Law No 241/1990, to decide not to proceed with the final award of the contract merely because criminal investigations are pending vis-à-vis the legal representative of the company to which the provisional award was made?

| 2. | Is it consistent with Community law for there to be a derogation from the principle of the finality of findings of criminal liability, as expressed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) on grounds of administrative expediency, relating to an area of administrative autonomy? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it consistent with Community law for there to be a derogation from the principle of the finality of findings of criminal liability, as expressed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) on grounds of administrative expediency, relating to an area of administrative autonomy?

| 3. | Is it consistent with Community law for there to be a derogation from the principle of the finality of findings of criminal liability, as expressed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, where pending criminal investigations concern offences relating to the tendering procedure covered by the administrative decision adopted by way of self-protection? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it consistent with Community law for there to be a derogation from the principle of the finality of findings of criminal liability, as expressed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, where pending criminal investigations concern offences relating to the tendering procedure covered by the administrative decision adopted by way of self-protection?

| 4. | Is it consistent with Community law for the decisions adopted by a contracting authority in matters of public procurement to be open to unlimited review by a national administrative court, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred in matters relating to public procurement, covering the reliability and the suitability of the tender, and thus going above and beyond the limited cases of clear absurdity, irrationality, failure to state adequate reasons or error as to the facts?’ |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it consistent with Community law for the decisions adopted by a contracting authority in matters of public procurement to be open to unlimited review by a national administrative court, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred in matters relating to public procurement, covering the reliability and the suitability of the tender, and thus going above and beyond the limited cases of clear absurdity, irrationality, failure to state adequate reasons or error as to the facts?’

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

(Case C-443/13)

2013/C 344/69

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendants and appellants: Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH

Applicant and respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1086/2011 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 to be understood as meaning that fresh poultry meat must satisfy the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (2) at all stages of distribution? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1086/2011 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 to be understood as meaning that fresh poultry meat must satisfy the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (2) at all stages of distribution?

| 2. | Are food business operators which are active at the food distribution stage also subject in full to the regime under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are food business operators which are active at the food distribution stage also subject in full to the regime under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005?

| 3. | Must the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 also be observed at all stages of distribution by food business operators which are not involved in production (being involved exclusively at the distribution stage)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 also be observed at all stages of distribution by food business operators which are not involved in production (being involved exclusively at the distribution stage)?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as regards salmonella in fresh poultry meat (OJ 2011 L 281, p. 7).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/40

---

Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Voss of Norway ASA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2013 in Case T-178/11: Voss of Norway ASA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-445/13 P)

2013/C 344/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Voss of Norway ASA (represented by: F. Jacobacci, B La Tella, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 (T-178/11); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 (T-178/11);

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, Voss of Norway ASA (‘Voss’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (‘GC’) of 28 May 2013 in Case T-178/11 (‘ judgment under appeal’), by which the GC dismissed Voss’ application seeking the annulment of the decision of the First board of Appeal (‘BOA’) of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 January 2011 in Case R 785/2010-1 (‘the contested decision’) upholding the request for a declaration of invalidity lodged by Nordic Spirit in respect of the Community trade mark (‘CTM shape mark’), registered by Voss on 3 December 2004.

The appeal is based on the following grounds:

| | First Plea: the judgment under appeal failed to take into account Voss’s second plea to the GC, namely that the burden of proof was reversed before the Board of Appeal


  The GC failed to consider whether the BOA had made an error of law regarding the procedural question of the burden of proof. This plea in law has an independent significance overall for CTM law. This reversed Burden of Proof standard — which contravenes general principles of law — could become part of the body of relevant case-law. For that reason only, the BOA decision should have been annulled and the judgment under appeal set aside. |
| --- | --- |

First Plea: the judgment under appeal failed to take into account Voss’s second plea to the GC, namely that the burden of proof was reversed before the Board of Appeal

The GC failed to consider whether the BOA had made an error of law regarding the procedural question of the burden of proof. This plea in law has an independent significance overall for CTM law. This reversed Burden of Proof standard — which contravenes general principles of law — could become part of the body of relevant case-law. For that reason only, the BOA decision should have been annulled and the judgment under appeal set aside.

| | Second Plea: the GC also erroneously shifted the burden of proof


  The GC also shifted the burden of proof, which rested exclusively on Nordic Spirit AB as the cancellation party contesting the validity of a registered CTM, on to Voss to submit concrete evidence that the Voss shape mark is distinctive. To that effect, the GC quoted case-law regarding trademark applications — and non-registered trademarks — that did not enjoy a presumption of validity, as Voss’s CTM shape mark does. This constitutes a clear violation of the rules ensuring a fair trial, Article 99 CTMR (1) and Rule 37 (b) (iv) CTMIR (2) which, by itself, is sufficient to annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

Second Plea: the GC also erroneously shifted the burden of proof

The GC also shifted the burden of proof, which rested exclusively on Nordic Spirit AB as the cancellation party contesting the validity of a registered CTM, on to Voss to submit concrete evidence that the Voss shape mark is distinctive. To that effect, the GC quoted case-law regarding trademark applications — and non-registered trademarks — that did not enjoy a presumption of validity, as Voss’s CTM shape mark does. This constitutes a clear violation of the rules ensuring a fair trial, Article 99 CTMR (1) and Rule 37 (b) (iv) CTMIR (2) which, by itself, is sufficient to annul the contested decision.

| | Third Plea: the erroneous definition of the norms and customs of the sector which constitutes an infringement of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR


  The GC correctly stated, at para. 45, that it is necessary to ascertain whether the contested CTM departs significantly from the norms and customs of the relevant sector. Thus the analysis of whether a 3D shape mark is distinctive requires first and foremost an examination of the ‘norms of the sector’ in order to then determine whether a particular 3D mark can be distinguished by the consumer from other undertakings.
  However, the identification by the GC of the latter falls far short of a well-grounded definition of the ‘norms’ of the sector for beverages. The indications identified by the GC relating to the norms of the sector are first factually wrong (the reference to an inexistent ‘cylindrical section’) and so vague and general that — if applied — no beverage bottle would ever pass the test for distinctiveness (not even the famous Coca-Cola bottle, if it were the object of a cancellation action). By contrast, the Cancellation Division properly defined the norms of the sector.
  Further, the Board of Appeal in decision R 2465/2011-2 dated 1 February 2012 (Freixenet v. OHIM), held at para. 36 that ‘previously, nor the examiner, nor the Board, presented documents which contained references to the reality of the market existing at the day of application, and
  did not identify nor indicate concrete examples of identical or similar bottles commonly used in the sector before said date. This omission is a sufficient ground to uphold the appeal
  .’ Thus, the General Court, by omitting to indicate concrete examples of the norms of the sector, clearly infringed Article 7 (1) (b) of the CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

Third Plea: the erroneous definition of the norms and customs of the sector which constitutes an infringement of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR

The GC correctly stated, at para. 45, that it is necessary to ascertain whether the contested CTM departs significantly from the norms and customs of the relevant sector. Thus the analysis of whether a 3D shape mark is distinctive requires first and foremost an examination of the ‘norms of the sector’ in order to then determine whether a particular 3D mark can be distinguished by the consumer from other undertakings.

However, the identification by the GC of the latter falls far short of a well-grounded definition of the ‘norms’ of the sector for beverages. The indications identified by the GC relating to the norms of the sector are first factually wrong (the reference to an inexistent ‘cylindrical section’) and so vague and general that — if applied — no beverage bottle would ever pass the test for distinctiveness (not even the famous Coca-Cola bottle, if it were the object of a cancellation action). By contrast, the Cancellation Division properly defined the norms of the sector.

Further, the Board of Appeal in decision R 2465/2011-2 dated 1 February 2012 (Freixenet v. OHIM), held at para. 36 that ‘previously, nor the examiner, nor the Board, presented documents which contained references to the reality of the market existing at the day of application, and
  did not identify nor indicate concrete examples of identical or similar bottles commonly used in the sector before said date. This omission is a sufficient ground to uphold the appeal
  .’ Thus, the General Court, by omitting to indicate concrete examples of the norms of the sector, clearly infringed Article 7 (1) (b) of the CTMR.

| | Fourth Plea: Error in law regarding the assessment of the distinctive character of the Voss bottle shape trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR


  It emerges from the applicable case law regarding the distinctive character that a trade mark must be considered and assessed as a whole and that the assessment of each of the component pieces merely helps the overall assessment but cannot serve as a substitute for the same. In the judgment under appeal, the GC only evaluated each component individually and did not assess the trade mark as a whole.
  The GC thus erred in law in assessing whether the mark has distinctive character, as it did not consider, as it was required to do, the overall impression given by the mark, but adopted the wrong approach by separating the mark into its component parts, each being found somewhat original. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth Plea: Error in law regarding the assessment of the distinctive character of the Voss bottle shape trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR

It emerges from the applicable case law regarding the distinctive character that a trade mark must be considered and assessed as a whole and that the assessment of each of the component pieces merely helps the overall assessment but cannot serve as a substitute for the same. In the judgment under appeal, the GC only evaluated each component individually and did not assess the trade mark as a whole.

The GC thus erred in law in assessing whether the mark has distinctive character, as it did not consider, as it was required to do, the overall impression given by the mark, but adopted the wrong approach by separating the mark into its component parts, each being found somewhat original.

| | Fifth Plea: Serious distortion of evidence in comparing 3D shape with a two-dimensional section and in identifying the norms and customs of the sector


  Both statements: ‘The vast majority of bottles that can be found on the market have a cylindrical section’ and “bottles come in all sorts of shapes and sizes” were grossly inaccurate and have been nevertheless expressly or impliedly reiterated by the GC in order to dismiss the application for annulment of the BOA decision, thus amounting to a serious distortion of facts or evidence, which constitutes an error of law. |
| --- | --- |

Fifth Plea: Serious distortion of evidence in comparing 3D shape with a two-dimensional section and in identifying the norms and customs of the sector

Both statements: ‘The vast majority of bottles that can be found on the market have a cylindrical section’ and “bottles come in all sorts of shapes and sizes” were grossly inaccurate and have been nevertheless expressly or impliedly reiterated by the GC in order to dismiss the application for annulment of the BOA decision, thus amounting to a serious distortion of facts or evidence, which constitutes an error of law.

| | Sixth Plea: the decision of the General Court essentially impedes registration of 3D CTM’S violation which constitutes a violation of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR in conjunction with Article 4 CTMR


  The result of the reasoning set out by the General Court is that it is essentially impossible for a product package to be distinctive both as a whole and as a combination of separate components at the same time. On a practical level, the result is that no product packaging can ever pass the test of distinctiveness as established by judgment under appeal and defeats the purpose of the CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

Sixth Plea: the decision of the General Court essentially impedes registration of 3D CTM’S violation which constitutes a violation of Article 7(1) (b) CTMR in conjunction with Article 4 CTMR

The result of the reasoning set out by the General Court is that it is essentially impossible for a product package to be distinctive both as a whole and as a combination of separate components at the same time. On a practical level, the result is that no product packaging can ever pass the test of distinctiveness as established by judgment under appeal and defeats the purpose of the CTMR.

---

(1)  Community Trade Mark Regulation — Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark OJ L 11, p. 1, replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 303, p. 1

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/41

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

(Case C-451/13)

2013/C 344/71

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gigaset AG

Defendants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

Questions referred

| 1. | In a decision by which it imposes a fine on several natural or legal persons as joint and several debtors for a breach of Article 101 TFEU, is the Commission also obliged to give a conclusive ruling on the question as to what shares of the fine should be apportioned to the individual joint and several debtors? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a decision by which it imposes a fine on several natural or legal persons as joint and several debtors for a breach of Article 101 TFEU, is the Commission also obliged to give a conclusive ruling on the question as to what shares of the fine should be apportioned to the individual joint and several debtors?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






  (a) | Is a Commission decision which contains no express instruction as to apportionment among joint and several debtors to be interpreted as meaning that the fine is to be paid in equal shares by all of the joint and several debtors? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

(a)

Is a Commission decision which contains no express instruction as to apportionment among joint and several debtors to be interpreted as meaning that the fine is to be paid in equal shares by all of the joint and several debtors?

| (b) | If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative:
  Can the courts of the Member States close the gap in the decision that ensues if the Commission does not rule on the apportionment of the fine among joint and several debtors, without any need for a supplementary decision by the Commission? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative:

Can the courts of the Member States close the gap in the decision that ensues if the Commission does not rule on the apportionment of the fine among joint and several debtors, without any need for a supplementary decision by the Commission?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2(b) in the affirmative: Does European Union law contain provisions as to how a fine should be apportioned among joint and several debtors? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2(b) in the affirmative: Does European Union law contain provisions as to how a fine should be apportioned among joint and several debtors?

| 4. | If Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
  Can a joint and several debtor which has paid the fine in full or in part seek settlement by the other joint and several debtors before a final decision has been taken on an action brought challenging the fixing of the fine? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

Can a joint and several debtor which has paid the fine in full or in part seek settlement by the other joint and several debtors before a final decision has been taken on an action brought challenging the fixing of the fine?

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/42

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2013 — The Queen on application of Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency

(Case C-453/13)

2013/C 344/72

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Newby Foods Ltd

Defendant: Food Standards Agency

Questions referred

| (i) | Do the words ‘loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ in paragraph 1.14 of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) mean ‘any loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy? (The same words appear also in Article 3(n) of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 (2), as amended by Regulations (EC) No. 1923/2006 (3)). |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Do the words ‘loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ in paragraph 1.14 of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) mean ‘any loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy? (The same words appear also in Article 3(n) of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 (2), as amended by Regulations (EC) No. 1923/2006 (3)).

| (ii) | Can a meat product be classified as a meat preparation within paragraph 1.15 of Annex I where there has been some loss or modification of its muscle fibre structure that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Can a meat product be classified as a meat preparation within paragraph 1.15 of Annex I where there has been some loss or modification of its muscle fibre structure that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy?

| (iii) | If the answer to (i) is no and the answer to (ii) is yes, is the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure that is sufficient to require the meat product to be classified as MSM within paragraph 1.14 of Annex I the same as that required to eliminate the characteristics of fresh meat within paragraph 1.15? |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

If the answer to (i) is no and the answer to (ii) is yes, is the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure that is sufficient to require the meat product to be classified as MSM within paragraph 1.14 of Annex I the same as that required to eliminate the characteristics of fresh meat within paragraph 1.15?

| (iv) | To what extent must the characteristics of fresh meat have been diminished before they can be said to have been eliminated within the meaning of paragraph 1.15? |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

To what extent must the characteristics of fresh meat have been diminished before they can be said to have been eliminated within the meaning of paragraph 1.15?

| (v) | If the answer to (i) is no, but the answer to (iii) is also no:






  (a) | What degree of modification to the muscle fibre structure is required in order for the product in question to be classified as MSM? |
| --- | --- | --- |

(v)

If the answer to (i) is no, but the answer to (iii) is also no:

(a)

What degree of modification to the muscle fibre structure is required in order for the product in question to be classified as MSM?

| (b) | What criteria should be used by national courts in determining whether or not the muscle fibre structure of the meat has been modified by that degree? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

What criteria should be used by national courts in determining whether or not the muscle fibre structure of the meat has been modified by that degree?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin

OJ L 139, p. 55

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

OJ L 147, p. 1

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1923/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 1

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/42

---

Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission

(Case C-457/13 P)

2013/C 344/73

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli, K. Skelly, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in its entirety;

| — | give final judgment in the matter by declaring the application in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matter by declaring the application in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded;

| — | order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal;

Should the Court decide to uphold the judgment of the General Court, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to:

| — | maintain as definitive the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 (1) and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 (2) as well as those of Article 60(7) of the latter Regulation, to the extent that payments to producers organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until 15 October of the year of the delivery of the judgment of the Court or such future date thereafter as the Court thinks fit in respect to payments which relate to operational programmes approved before 30 May 2013. |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain as definitive the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 (1) and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 (2) as well as those of Article 60(7) of the latter Regulation, to the extent that payments to producers organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until 15 October of the year of the delivery of the judgment of the Court or such future date thereafter as the Court thinks fit in respect to payments which relate to operational programmes approved before 30 May 2013.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission in the present case requests the Court to set aside the contested judgment of the General Court, to give final judgment in the matter by declaring the applications in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded, and to order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal

This appeal arises from proceedings taken by the Applicants seeking an annulment of (i) Article 52(2)a and Annex VIII of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and (ii) annulment of Article 50(3) and Article 60(7) of Commission Regulation No 543/2011.

The Applicants, at first instance were fruit and vegetable processors who claimed that the aforesaid provisions indirectly allow for Union funding of certain processing activities carried out by producer organisations.

The General Court found the proceedings admissible. The General Court held that the granting of aid to producer organisations whose product was then either processed by the organisation itself or by a third party on its behalf, amounted to providing aid for processing activities which was outside of the scope of the Single CMO Regulation (3). In addition the General Court held that the Commission was not entitled to provide aid which discriminated to the detriment of the processors who are not members of a producer organisation and to the advantage of producer organisations in so far as they carry out processing activities.

The Commission submits that in reaching these conclusions, the General Court erred on three counts.

Firstly the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding the applicants’ actions admissible. The Commission argues that the measures in question are regulatory measures of general application which require implementing measures on the part of the Member States in order to produce legal effects. In addition, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding that the measures in question are of direct concern to the applicants. In reaching this conclusion the General Court held that the position of the applicants was the same as that of competitors of a recipient of state aid. The Commission submits that the General Court was incorrect in reaching this conclusion.

On the substantive issue, the Commission submits that the General Court failed to correctly interpret the provisions of the Single CMO Regulation and in particular failed to have adequate regard to the margin of discretion conferred on the Commission by the Council to adopt implementing rules for the Single CMO Regulation.

Finally, the Commission submits that the General Court incorrectly interpreted the principle of non-discrimination as it would apply to schemes providing financial aid under the Single CMO Regulation.

Should the Court decide to dismiss the appeal, the Commission requests that the Court exercise its discretion under Article 264 of TFEU to suspend the effects of the order until 15 October of the year of delivery of its judgment. The Commission seeks such an order to ensure that the effects of the order will apply equally to all producer organisations and will not lead to undue hardship on producer organisations.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, OJ L 350 p. 1

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, OJ L 157, p. 1

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), OJ L 299, p. 1

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/43

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.

(Case C-458/13)

2013/C 344/74

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler

Respondents on a point of law: Nintendo Co. Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc.

Question referred

Does Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) preclude the application of a provision (in this case Paragraph 95a(3) of the UrhG [Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Law on copyright and related rights]) which transposes Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC into national law if the technological measure in question protects not only works or other subject-matter but also computer programs?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-459/13)

2013/C 344/75

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milica Široká

Defendant: Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted, in the spirit of the European legal tradition, as authorising every bearer of that right to choose whether to make use of or refuse access to preventative healthcare together with the possibility of using medical care without regard to the mandatory conditions set out in national laws and procedures, or does the public interest in ensuring a high level of health protection for European Union citizens not enable individuals to make that choice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted, in the spirit of the European legal tradition, as authorising every bearer of that right to choose whether to make use of or refuse access to preventative healthcare together with the possibility of using medical care without regard to the mandatory conditions set out in national laws and procedures, or does the public interest in ensuring a high level of health protection for European Union citizens not enable individuals to make that choice?

| 2. | On a proper interpretation of Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular paragraphs 1 and 4(c) thereof, does the European Union objective of, in particular, preventing physical and mental illness and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health, preclude European Union citizens from refusing ‘compulsory’ vaccination, on the ground that that attitude represents a threat to public health? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On a proper interpretation of Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular paragraphs 1 and 4(c) thereof, does the European Union objective of, in particular, preventing physical and mental illness and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health, preclude European Union citizens from refusing ‘compulsory’ vaccination, on the ground that that attitude represents a threat to public health?

| 3. | Does parental responsibility for the purpose of Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which concerns in particular the unifying principle of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, take precedence over the public interest in the protection of health, in favour of the parental care of a minor? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does parental responsibility for the purpose of Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which concerns in particular the unifying principle of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, take precedence over the public interest in the protection of health, in favour of the parental care of a minor?

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2013 — Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

(Case C-463/13)

2013/C 344/76

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

| 2. | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/45

---

Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-468/13 P)

2013/C 344/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (represented by: K. Szamosi, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12 and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market No. R 2532/2011-2 of 30 May 2012 insofar as the appeal of the Intervener is dismissed and the rejection of the Intervener’s opposition is upheld; or alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 June 2013 in Case T-367/12 and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market No. R 2532/2011-2 of 30 May 2012 insofar as the appeal of the Intervener is dismissed and the rejection of the Intervener’s opposition is upheld; or alternatively

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment; and

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings of the first instance and appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings of the first instance and appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that

| — | The General Court’s findings regarding the inadmissibility of the Appellant’s arguments submitted before OHIM are on the one hand irrelevant, and, on the other hand, unjustified and incorrect; therefore the General Court infringed Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court’s findings regarding the inadmissibility of the Appellant’s arguments submitted before OHIM are on the one hand irrelevant, and, on the other hand, unjustified and incorrect; therefore the General Court infringed Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

| — | There was no need and no legal grounds for disregarding the evidence submitted by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court, and, therefore, the General Court infringed Article 65(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 135 (4) of the Rules of Procedure when it considered the Appellant’s evidence to be inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

There was no need and no legal grounds for disregarding the evidence submitted by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court, and, therefore, the General Court infringed Article 65(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 135 (4) of the Rules of Procedure when it considered the Appellant’s evidence to be inadmissible.

| — | The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation when establishing the relevant public and its relevance in assessing the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation when establishing the relevant public and its relevance in assessing the likelihood of confusion.

| — | The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation and settled case-law when it found that the services in question are considered to be identical. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation and settled case-law when it found that the services in question are considered to be identical.

| — | The General Court did not make a clear and separate assessment of the aspects of visual, aural (phonetic) and conceptual similarity, and did not examine the relevant circumstances of the case in the light of this assessment, and therefore, the General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court did not make a clear and separate assessment of the aspects of visual, aural (phonetic) and conceptual similarity, and did not examine the relevant circumstances of the case in the light of this assessment, and therefore, the General Court infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation.

| — | The General Court infringed the law when it found that the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Intervener’s earlier trademarks and the Appellant’s Community trade mark application. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the law when it found that the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Intervener’s earlier trademarks and the Appellant’s Community trade mark application.

---

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

OJ L 78, p.1

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/45

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-471/13)

2013/C 344/78

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Link

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there also a right to compensation analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) where the arrival of the flight originally booked by the passengers is delayed by more than three hours, the passengers however in the meantime –after a long flight departure delay had already occurred — voluntarily, autonomously and on their own account arranged replacement transportation with another airline company and therefore do not travel on the originally booked flight, the passengers arriving at the destination airport, on the replacement transportation, at a time which is more than three hours after the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there also a right to compensation analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) where the arrival of the flight originally booked by the passengers is delayed by more than three hours, the passengers however in the meantime –after a long flight departure delay had already occurred — voluntarily, autonomously and on their own account arranged replacement transportation with another airline company and therefore do not travel on the originally booked flight, the passengers arriving at the destination airport, on the replacement transportation, at a time which is more than three hours after the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked?

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: is it decisive for the creation of a right analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that the voluntary and autonomous choice of replacement transportation with another airline company is made at a time when the delay in any event is already five hours pursuant to Article 6(1)(c)(iii) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: is it decisive for the creation of a right analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that the voluntary and autonomous choice of replacement transportation with another airline company is made at a time when the delay in any event is already five hours pursuant to Article 6(1)(c)(iii) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/46

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2013 — Hans Angerer v Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer

(Case C-477/13)

2013/C 344/79

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hans Angerer

Respondent: Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Are ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ within the meaning of Article 10 of the Directive (1) the circumstances defined in the categories that follow (numbered (a) to (g)), or must in addition to these circumstances ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ be given, for which the applicant does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Chapters II and III of Title III of the Directive? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Are ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ within the meaning of Article 10 of the Directive (1) the circumstances defined in the categories that follow (numbered (a) to (g)), or must in addition to these circumstances ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ be given, for which the applicant does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Chapters II and III of Title III of the Directive?

| (b) | In the latter case, of what sort must the ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ be? Must they be personal reasons — such as reasons relating to the individual’s curriculum vitae ‒ for which the migrant does not, by way of exception, satisfy the conditions for automatic recognition of his training under Chapter III of Title III of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In the latter case, of what sort must the ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ be? Must they be personal reasons — such as reasons relating to the individual’s curriculum vitae ‒ for which the migrant does not, by way of exception, satisfy the conditions for automatic recognition of his training under Chapter III of Title III of the Directive?

| 2. | (a) | Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require that the migrant in the Member State of origin, beyond carrying out the technical activities of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, has also or could also have, after his training, carried out creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation activities, and if so to what extent? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require that the migrant in the Member State of origin, beyond carrying out the technical activities of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, has also or could also have, after his training, carried out creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation activities, and if so to what extent?

| (b) | Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require the migrant to have a university-level education, of which the principal component is architecture, meaning that it goes beyond technical matters of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, and also covers creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation matters, and if so to what extent? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require the migrant to have a university-level education, of which the principal component is architecture, meaning that it goes beyond technical matters of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, and also covers creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation matters, and if so to what extent?

| (c) | (i) | Do the answers to a) and b) depend on how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in other Member States (Article 48(1) of the Directive); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

(i)

Do the answers to a) and b) depend on how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in other Member States (Article 48(1) of the Directive);

| (ii) | or is it sufficient to establish how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in the Member State of origin and in the host Member State; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

or is it sufficient to establish how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in the Member State of origin and in the host Member State;

| (iii) | or can the spectrum of activities normally associated with the professional title of ‘architect’ in the territory of European Union be derived from Article 46(1) paragraph 2 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

or can the spectrum of activities normally associated with the professional title of ‘architect’ in the territory of European Union be derived from Article 46(1) paragraph 2 of the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/46

---

Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-479/13)

2013/C 344/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2)

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

—

order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 7 % from 1 January 2012, then of 5.5 % from 1 January 2013, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.

The Commission claims that under the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of the VAT directive, reduced rates of VAT may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. Category 6 of Annex III to the VAT directive does not mention the supply of digital books as being capable of being subject to a reduced rate of VAT. The Commission infers from that that the supply of electronic books must therefore be subject to the normal rate of VAT in accordance with Article 96 of the VAT directive. That is also confirmed, according to the Commission, by the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT. Finally, in support of its action, the Commission claims that the VAT Committee unanimously adopted, on 9 February 2011, guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

---

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

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/47

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD

(Case C-488/13)

2013/C 344/81

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS

Defendants:‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD, Insolvency administrator of ‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD

Questions referred

| 1. | How is the criterion of the uncontested nature of an enforceable pecuniary claim within the meaning of the sixth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 to be interpreted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How is the criterion of the uncontested nature of an enforceable pecuniary claim within the meaning of the sixth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 to be interpreted?

| 2. | In cases in which national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, in whose territory the pecuniary claim is being enforced, does not determine whether the enforcement order is applicable to a pecuniary claim in insolvency proceedings which were initiated against the person whose property is affected by the enforcement, must the prohibition in Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted strictly and does it only apply to the contested pecuniary claims to be enforced or does it also relate to the uncontested pecuniary claims to be enforced? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In cases in which national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, in whose territory the pecuniary claim is being enforced, does not determine whether the enforcement order is applicable to a pecuniary claim in insolvency proceedings which were initiated against the person whose property is affected by the enforcement, must the prohibition in Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted strictly and does it only apply to the contested pecuniary claims to be enforced or does it also relate to the uncontested pecuniary claims to be enforced?

| 3. | Is Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation, according to which the Regulation shall not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction only concerns the initiation of the proceedings referred to, or does that restriction also cover the whole course of the proceedings according to the stages of the proceedings provided for in the national legislation of the Member State of the European Union concerned? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation, according to which the Regulation shall not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction only concerns the initiation of the proceedings referred to, or does that restriction also cover the whole course of the proceedings according to the stages of the proceedings provided for in the national legislation of the Member State of the European Union concerned?

| 4. | In accordance with the doctrine of the primacy of Community law and in the case of a gap in the national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, may the national court of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were initiated against a person whose property is affected by the enforcement deliver a judgment which is different and contrary to the basic principles of the Regulation by way of interpretation of the tenth recital in the preamble to, and Article 26 of, the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In accordance with the doctrine of the primacy of Community law and in the case of a gap in the national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, may the national court of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were initiated against a person whose property is affected by the enforcement deliver a judgment which is different and contrary to the basic principles of the Regulation by way of interpretation of the tenth recital in the preamble to, and Article 26 of, the Regulation?

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/47

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-491/13)

2013/C 344/82

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Does Council Directive 2004/114/EC (1) of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service establish a non-discretionary right to a visa for the purposes of studies and the subsequent residence permit under Article 12 of the so called ‘Student Directive’, if the ‘conditions of admission’, namely those listed in Articles 6 and 7 of the directive, are met and there are no grounds for refusing the visa under Article 6(1)(d) of the directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/48

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — ‘Traum’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

(Case C-492/13)

2013/C 344/83

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Traum’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the requirement giving entitlement to tax exemption under Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) fulfilled and is there no exception under the second paragraph of Article 139(1) of the Directive in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in which it was established that the absence of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ in respect of the acquirer of the goods was indicated in the Union database after the actual supply, but the applicant claims that it acted with due diligence by obtaining information in this system which is not documented? The late recording of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ emerges from hard copies/information of the tax authorities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the requirement giving entitlement to tax exemption under Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) fulfilled and is there no exception under the second paragraph of Article 139(1) of the Directive in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in which it was established that the absence of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ in respect of the acquirer of the goods was indicated in the Union database after the actual supply, but the applicant claims that it acted with due diligence by obtaining information in this system which is not documented? The late recording of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ emerges from hard copies/information of the tax authorities.

| 2. | Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person?

| 3. | In a case such as the present does Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect, and can the national court directly apply the provision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In a case such as the present does Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect, and can the national court directly apply the provision?

---

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/48

---

Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-493/13)

2013/C 344/84

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Nicolae and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure, in the case of the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, effective structural separation of the regulatory function from activities associated with ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure, in the case of the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, effective structural separation of the regulatory function from activities associated with ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; (1)

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

—

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium (Ministry of the Economy and Communications) is included in the scope of the concept of ‘national regulatory authority’ defined in Article 2(g) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and the provisions of Article 3 of the Framework Directive apply to it, especially in connection with the structural separation referred to in Article 3(2).

The Commission submits that in addition to regulatory tasks the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium of the Republic of Estonia also carries out activity associated with the ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services. Effective structural separation of the two functions is not ensured, which is contrary to the requirements of Article 3(2) of the Framework Directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/49

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simboulio tis Epikratias lodged on 16 September 2013 — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly

(Case C-498/13)

2013/C 344/85

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simboulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly

Question referred

Must those who are to qualify as beneficiaries of the long-term agricultural land set-aside scheme under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 746/96 (2) be farmers or is it sufficient if they assume the financial risk of the land entered in the scheme and are responsible for its management?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 85).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1996 L 102, p. 19).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/49

---

Action brought on 18 September 2013 — European Commission v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-502/13)

2013/C 344/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation, (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation, (2)

| — | order Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 3 % from 1 January 2012, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.

According to the Commission, the application of a reduced rate of VAT is incompatible with the wording of Articles 96 and 98 of the VAT directive, in so far as such a rate may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. In the absence of express mention of the supply of digital books in that annex, the latter may not enjoy a reduced rate of VAT. That is moreover confirmed by the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT, and by the adoption by the VAT Committee of guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

The Commission considers also that the reduced rate of 3 %, that is to say a rate which is below the minimum rate of 5 % fixed by Article 99 of the VAT directive, to the supply of digital books, may not be covered by the exception provided for by Article 110 of the VAT directive, or in accordance with Article 114 of that directive.

---

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

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/50

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 September 2013 — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

(Case C-505/13)

2013/C 344/87

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Levent Redzheb Yumer

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Varna

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow that only one category of persons — natural persons registered under the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax, ‘ZDDS’) — has no legally recognised right to a tax reduction in respect of an agricultural activity? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow that only one category of persons — natural persons registered under the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax, ‘ZDDS’) — has no legally recognised right to a tax reduction in respect of an agricultural activity?

| 2. | Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the setting of different tax rates for the same type of activity depending on the legal form of the exercise of that activity and registration under the ZDDS? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the setting of different tax rates for the same type of activity depending on the legal form of the exercise of that activity and registration under the ZDDS?

| 3. | Is the introduction of internal measures which result in natural persons registered under the ZDDS and as farmers being denied a tax reduction that is provided for sole traders and legal persons — although they have fulfilled their legal obligations to constitute their taxable income in the same way as sole traders and to determine their annual basis of assessment in the same way as sole traders — an infringement of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the introduction of internal measures which result in natural persons registered under the ZDDS and as farmers being denied a tax reduction that is provided for sole traders and legal persons — although they have fulfilled their legal obligations to constitute their taxable income in the same way as sole traders and to determine their annual basis of assessment in the same way as sole traders — an infringement of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality?

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/50

---

Appeal brought on 19 September 2013 by Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 in Case T-552/11 Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case C-506/13 P)

2013/C 344/88

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (registered under No 575925) of 9 July 2013 in Case Τ-552/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (registered under No 575925) of 9 July 2013 in Case Τ-552/11;

| — | hear and rule on the substance of the present case, alternatively refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to examine the substance of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

hear and rule on the substance of the present case, alternatively refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to examine the substance of the case;

| — | dismiss the counter claim of the European Commission in that all the relevant forms of order raised at first instance are wholly inadmissible and in any event unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the counter claim of the European Commission in that all the relevant forms of order raised at first instance are wholly inadmissible and in any event unfounded;

| — | uphold the action brought on 24 October 2011 by the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ for the annulment of the debit note No 3241109207 issued on 9 September 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought on 24 October 2011 by the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ for the annulment of the debit note No 3241109207 issued on 9 September 2011;

| — | annul the contested debit note No 3241109207 for the sum of EUR 83 001,09; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested debit note No 3241109207 for the sum of EUR 83 001,09;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Error of law, in the failure to recognise that the debit note produces legal effects and as a result misapplication of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court, in holding that the European Commission did not exercise powers which it holds as a public authority and that the purpose of the debit note resides in the exercise of rights acquired by the Commission from the provisions of the contract committed an error of law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error of law, in the failure to recognise that the debit note produces legal effects and as a result misapplication of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court, in holding that the European Commission did not exercise powers which it holds as a public authority and that the purpose of the debit note resides in the exercise of rights acquired by the Commission from the provisions of the contract committed an error of law.

| 2. | Error of law, in the incorrect classification under the legal concept of ‘undue payment’. The General Court’s interpretation of the contract in respect of the meaning of undue payment is incorrect and wholly improper. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Error of law, in the incorrect classification under the legal concept of ‘undue payment’. The General Court’s interpretation of the contract in respect of the meaning of undue payment is incorrect and wholly improper.

| 3. | Infringement of the fundamental principles of European Union law in that the arguments of ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ in relation to the default interest rate were not taken into account. The General Court unlawfully determined the date when interest would start to run as the date following the date for payment stated in the debit note. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of the fundamental principles of European Union law in that the arguments of ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ in relation to the default interest rate were not taken into account. The General Court unlawfully determined the date when interest would start to run as the date following the date for payment stated in the debit note.

| 4. | Application of the incorrect legal criteria in the assessment by the General Court of the evidence. The General Court incorrectly called into question the working hours of the persons employed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Application of the incorrect legal criteria in the assessment by the General Court of the evidence. The General Court incorrectly called into question the working hours of the persons employed.

| 5. | Error of law and erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise. The General Court did not make a correct legal classification of the contested facts in respect of the nature and function of time sheets. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Error of law and erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise. The General Court did not make a correct legal classification of the contested facts in respect of the nature and function of time sheets.

| 6. | Manifest legal errors of assessment in respect of the procedural rules which safeguard the rights of the defence and equality of arms between the European Commission and the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’. The General Court erroneously held that the submitted worksheets did not meet the requirements imposed by the provisions of the contract and consequently determined that they were to be rejected as a means of proof and, further, that the submitted correspondence was not adequate evidence of the hours of work which were in fact provided by the persons employed. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Manifest legal errors of assessment in respect of the procedural rules which safeguard the rights of the defence and equality of arms between the European Commission and the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’. The General Court erroneously held that the submitted worksheets did not meet the requirements imposed by the provisions of the contract and consequently determined that they were to be rejected as a means of proof and, further, that the submitted correspondence was not adequate evidence of the hours of work which were in fact provided by the persons employed.

| 7. | Error of law in the assessment of the legal nature of the methods for the calculation of costs (Cost Models). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Error of law in the assessment of the legal nature of the methods for the calculation of costs (Cost Models).

| 8. | Error of law in respect of the meaning of misuse of power by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Error of law in respect of the meaning of misuse of power by the European Commission.

| 9. | Erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise, which leads to the erroneous judicial ruling on rejection of the argument of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ on the inadequate statement of reasons in the contested debit note. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise, which leads to the erroneous judicial ruling on rejection of the argument of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ on the inadequate statement of reasons in the contested debit note.

| 10. | Error of law in the assessment of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court erred in not holding that the European Commission, in breach of the protection of legitimate expectations, nullified the entire research work of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’, validating its formal deviations from the allegedly correct procedure by pursuit of the entirety of the sums paid. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Error of law in the assessment of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court erred in not holding that the European Commission, in breach of the protection of legitimate expectations, nullified the entire research work of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’, validating its formal deviations from the allegedly correct procedure by pursuit of the entirety of the sums paid.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/51

---

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Republic of Estonia v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-508/13)

2013/C 344/89

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | The Republic of Estonia considers that the following provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC:






  1. | Article 4(6) and (8), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Republic of Estonia considers that the following provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC:

1.

Article 4(6) and (8),

| 2. | Article 16(3), and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 16(3), and

| 3. | Article 6(3) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(3)

are not consistent with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and asks the Court to annul them on the ground of breach of the Treaties or the rules implementing them. The Republic of Estonia considers that, when those provisions were adopted, the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU — an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU — was also infringed. The Republic of Estonia consequently asks the Court to annul the words ‘and the disclosure requirement is contained in the national tax legislation for the strict purposes of tax collection’ in Article 4(6), the words ‘required by national tax legislation’ and ‘as referred to in paragraph 6’ in Article 4(8), and Article 16(3) and Article 6(3) as a whole. Should the Court take the view that those provisions are not to be regarded as separate and cannot be severed from the remaining text of the directive without changing it, and that the annulment of those provisions may affect the general system of the directive, the Republic of Estonia asks the Court to annul the directive as a whole on the same grounds and for the same reasons;

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

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The Republic of Estonia brings an action for the annulment of certain provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (‘the Directive’) or alternatively of the Directive as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Republic of Estonia brings an action for the annulment of certain provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (‘the Directive’) or alternatively of the Directive as a whole.

| 2. | The action is brought on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the words ‘and the disclosure requirement is contained in the national tax legislation for the strict purposes of tax collection’ in Article 4(6), the words ‘required by national tax legislation’ and ‘as referred to in paragraph 6’ in Article 4(8), and Article 16(3) and Article 6(3) as a whole, or alternatively of the Directive as a whole, on the ground of breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of the Treaties or rules implementing them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is brought on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the words ‘and the disclosure requirement is contained in the national tax legislation for the strict purposes of tax collection’ in Article 4(6), the words ‘required by national tax legislation’ and ‘as referred to in paragraph 6’ in Article 4(8), and Article 16(3) and Article 6(3) as a whole, or alternatively of the Directive as a whole, on the ground of breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of the Treaties or rules implementing them.

| 3. | The breach of essential procedural requirements consists, in the opinion of the Republic of Estonia, in the failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU when adopting the Directive. The infringement of the Treaty or the rules implementing it consists, in the opinion of the Republic of Estonia, in a breach of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The breach of essential procedural requirements consists, in the opinion of the Republic of Estonia, in the failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU when adopting the Directive. The infringement of the Treaty or the rules implementing it consists, in the opinion of the Republic of Estonia, in a breach of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

| 4. | The Republic of Estonia submits that the maximum harmonisation measures in Article 4(6) in conjunction with Article 4(8) and Article 16(3) cannot strike an appropriate balance between the two objectives of the Directive — improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements and reducing the administrative burden on small and medium-sized undertakings. The measures adopted are not therefore appropriate for attaining the desired legitimate objective. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Estonia submits that the maximum harmonisation measures in Article 4(6) in conjunction with Article 4(8) and Article 16(3) cannot strike an appropriate balance between the two objectives of the Directive — improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements and reducing the administrative burden on small and medium-sized undertakings. The measures adopted are not therefore appropriate for attaining the desired legitimate objective.

| 5. | An essential objective of the Directive — improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements — is not attainable by the measures adopted because proper regard was not had, when drawing up the draft of the Directive, to the structure of undertakings of the various Member States. As a result of transposing the Directive into the Member State’s legal system, 97.9 % of undertakings, accounting for more than half of the turnover achieved in the economy, would be freed from a substantial part of the requirements as to financial reporting — but that does not contribute to attaining the objective, extending to the whole European Union, of improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements. |
| --- | --- |

5.

An essential objective of the Directive — improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements — is not attainable by the measures adopted because proper regard was not had, when drawing up the draft of the Directive, to the structure of undertakings of the various Member States. As a result of transposing the Directive into the Member State’s legal system, 97.9 % of undertakings, accounting for more than half of the turnover achieved in the economy, would be freed from a substantial part of the requirements as to financial reporting — but that does not contribute to attaining the objective, extending to the whole European Union, of improving the clarity and comparability of financial statements.

| 6. | An essential objective of the Directive — reducing the administrative burden — is not attainable by the measures adopted because, when drawing up the draft of the Directive, account was not taken of the reduction of the administrative burden already achieved in the Member State by means other than reducing the extent of financial reporting; also because the information hitherto obtained from undertakings in the context of financial reporting, the requiring of which in that form would have to be discontinued in future because of the rule in Article 4(6), is, as previously, necessary information both for the private undertakings themselves and for the public sector. Additional information would therefore in future have to be collected and published through other channels — the administrative burden will thereby be relocated and may also increase. |
| --- | --- |

6.

An essential objective of the Directive — reducing the administrative burden — is not attainable by the measures adopted because, when drawing up the draft of the Directive, account was not taken of the reduction of the administrative burden already achieved in the Member State by means other than reducing the extent of financial reporting; also because the information hitherto obtained from undertakings in the context of financial reporting, the requiring of which in that form would have to be discontinued in future because of the rule in Article 4(6), is, as previously, necessary information both for the private undertakings themselves and for the public sector. Additional information would therefore in future have to be collected and published through other channels — the administrative burden will thereby be relocated and may also increase.

| 7. | The principle of the priority of substance laid down in Article 6(1)(h) of the Directive is an important principle of the Directive. If it is possible for the Member States to abandon the principle of the priority of substance in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Directive and that possibility is made use of when transposing the provisions of the Directive into the national law of the Member State, then it is in principle not possible to attain the objective of improving the comparability, clarity and public confidence of financial statements extending to the whole European Union. Consequently, the measure adopted is not consistent with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The principle of the priority of substance laid down in Article 6(1)(h) of the Directive is an important principle of the Directive. If it is possible for the Member States to abandon the principle of the priority of substance in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Directive and that possibility is made use of when transposing the provisions of the Directive into the national law of the Member State, then it is in principle not possible to attain the objective of improving the comparability, clarity and public confidence of financial statements extending to the whole European Union. Consequently, the measure adopted is not consistent with the principle of proportionality.

| 8. | In view of the fact that the result of adopting the measures in Article 4(6) and (8) and Article 16(3) of the Directive is not necessarily a Union-wide improvement of the clarity and comparability of financial statements and the measures adopted may also lead to a relocation instead of a reduction of the administrative burden in a Member State, the measures adopted do not make it possible better to attain the objectives of the Directive at European Union level. Those provisions are not therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

8.

In view of the fact that the result of adopting the measures in Article 4(6) and (8) and Article 16(3) of the Directive is not necessarily a Union-wide improvement of the clarity and comparability of financial statements and the measures adopted may also lead to a relocation instead of a reduction of the administrative burden in a Member State, the measures adopted do not make it possible better to attain the objectives of the Directive at European Union level. Those provisions are not therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 182, p. 19.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/52

---

Appeal brought on 1 October 2013 by Think Schuhwerk GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-208/12 Think Schuhwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-521/13 P)

2013/C 344/90

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 in Case T-208/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 in Case T-208/12;

| — | grant the form of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought at first instance;

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

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The grounds of appeal put forward are, essentially, as follows:

1.   Infringement of the right to be heard

In the judicial proceedings, the defendant did not submit a response to the application in due time. As a result, the present appellant submitted an application for judgment by default. The General Court, however, neither ruled on the default nor commented on the application for judgment by default. It also gave the present appellant no possibility of requesting that a hearing be held.

2.   Failure to have regard to the failure to state reasons

The General Court failed to recognise that a failure to state reasons lies in the fact that the Board of Appeal relied on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods such as shoes, which are known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods. The Board of Appeal did not state which facts arise from practical experience acquired from the marketing of those goods. The Office did not explain why the red position mark has no distinctive character even though different designs and colours for shoes and shoelaces existed in the market for shoes.

3.   Failure to have regard to the significance of the principle of ex proprio motu investigation

The General Court failed to recognise that the Board of Appeal infringed the principle of ex proprio motu investigation in its decision. The Office, however, merely referred to the fact that the present appellant had produced no evidence purporting to show that the mark is perceived by the target public as an indication of origin.

4.   Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR)

The General Court failed to recognise the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR by the Office and thereby also incorrectly interpreted and applied that provision.

Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, red aglets which stand out in terms of colour from the rest of the shoelace are quite capable of fulfilling an essential function of indicating origin. The General Court, however, set a higher standard for the mark in the present case than for figurative and word marks. It also failed to recognise the fact that distinctive character does not depend on the mark submitted for registration differing significantly from industry standards.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/53

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-245/12) (1)

2013/C 344/91

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/53

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2013 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-310/12) (1)

2013/C 344/92

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/53

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-544/12) (1)

2013/C 344/93

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/53

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen

(Case C-610/12) (1)

2013/C 344/94

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

General Court

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-545/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Partial refusal of access - Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person - Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Directive 91/414/EEC)

2013/C 344/95

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market inasmuch as it refuses access to the parts of that volume containing information relating to emissions into the environment: the ‘identity’ and quantity of all of the impurities in the active substance notified by each operator, set out in part C.1.2.1 of the first sub-document (pp. 11 to 61), in part C.1.2.1 of the second sub-document (pp. 1 to 6) and in part C.1.2.1 of the third sub-document (pp. 4 and 8 to 13); the impurities present in the various batches and the minimum, median and maximum quantities of each of those impurities, set out, for each operator, in the table included in part C.1.2.2 of the first sub-document (pp. 61 to 84) and in part C.1.2.4 of the third sub-document (p. 7); and the composition of the plant protection products developed by the operators, set out in part C.1.3, entitled ‘Detailed specification of the preparations’, of the first sub-document (pp. 84 to 88) of that volume; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market inasmuch as it refuses access to the parts of that volume containing information relating to emissions into the environment: the ‘identity’ and quantity of all of the impurities in the active substance notified by each operator, set out in part C.1.2.1 of the first sub-document (pp. 11 to 61), in part C.1.2.1 of the second sub-document (pp. 1 to 6) and in part C.1.2.1 of the third sub-document (pp. 4 and 8 to 13); the impurities present in the various batches and the minimum, median and maximum quantities of each of those impurities, set out, for each operator, in the table included in part C.1.2.2 of the first sub-document (pp. 61 to 84) and in part C.1.2.4 of the third sub-document (p. 7); and the composition of the plant protection products developed by the operators, set out in part C.1.3, entitled ‘Detailed specification of the preparations’, of the first sub-document (pp. 84 to 88) of that volume;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY

(Case T-167/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Professional development - Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group - Distortion of evidence)

2013/C 344/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Other party: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the partial annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment).

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/55

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)

(Case T-285/12) (1)

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

2013/C 344/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Boomerang TV, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 699/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Boomerang TV, SA and The Cartoon Network, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Cartoon Network, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Cartoon Network, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/55

---

Order of the General Court of 1 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-554/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financing by the European Union of certain projects in Tunisia, in the framework of the EuropeAid programme - Development of an integrated IT system for the Tunisian judiciary - Recovery by the Commission of debts payable to Tunisia by a third party - Debit note - Acts inseparable from the contract - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissible)

2013/C 344/98

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, and N. Theologou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to settle sums allegedly payable and requiring repayment of the sum of EUR 281 270,00 paid in the framework of the implementation of the contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (C&F/2011/D/001101), and also of debit note 3241108036, received by the applicant on 17 August 2011, and of all the Commission’s related decisions

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/55

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP International (SKYDRIVE)

(Case T-153/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 344/99

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Colbourn, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Baxter and D. Rose, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (case R 2293/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sky IP International Ltd and Microsoft Corp.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/56

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T-397/13 R)

(Interim measures - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Regulation fixing the refunds at zero - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2013/C 344/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and F. Le Roquais, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for stay of execution of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/56

---

Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Al Assad v Council

(Case T-407/13)

2013/C 344/101

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul:






  — | Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Ms Bouchra (known as Bushra) Al Assad; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul:

—

Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Ms Bouchra (known as Bushra) Al Assad;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Ms Bouchra (known as Bushra) Al Assad; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Ms Bouchra (known as Bushra) Al Assad;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council.
   (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/56

---

Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council

(Case T-408/13)

2013/C 344/102

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adib Mayaleh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul:






  — | Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul:

—

Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council.
   (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/57

---

Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)

(Case T-431/13)

2013/C 344/103

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action admissible and well-founded, and, as a consequence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible and well-founded, and, as a consequence;

| — | Annul in part the contested decision, in that it refused to declare the invalidity of the Community trade mark at issue based on the marks Nos 02 3 167 081, No 02 3 167 084 and No 794 040, and the other unregistered signs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part the contested decision, in that it refused to declare the invalidity of the Community trade mark at issue based on the marks Nos 02 3 167 081, No 02 3 167 084 and No 794 040, and the other unregistered signs;

| — | Uphold the contested decision, in that it declared the invalidity in part of mark No 3 590 981 on the basis of the earlier mark No 02 3 143 685; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the contested decision, in that it declared the invalidity in part of mark No 3 590 981 on the basis of the earlier mark No 02 3 143 685;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘METROPOL’ for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 590 981

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National word mark ‘METROPOLE’ and national and international figurative marks ‘METROPOLE gestion’ for the services in Class 36

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application is rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/57

---

Action brought on 12 August 2013 — ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (shape of boxes of chocolates)

(Case T-440/13)

2013/C 344/104

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Zakład Wyrobów Cukierniczych ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas (Przeźmierowo, Poland) (represented by: B. Kański, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 May 2013 in Case R 755/2012-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 May 2013 in Case R 755/2012-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of boxes of chocolates for goods in Class 30 — application no 10 359 602

Decision of the Examiner: application for registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/57

---

Action brought on 3 September 2013 — G-Star Raw v OHIM — PepsiCo (PEPSI RAW)

(Case T-473/13)

2013/C 344/105

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van Manen, M. van de Braak and L. Fresco, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 June 2013 given in Case R 1586/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 June 2013 given in Case R 1586/2012-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the present proceedings, should it intervene, as well as those incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the present proceedings, should it intervene, as well as those incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘PEPSI RAW’ for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6 788 004

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Verbal mark ‘RAW’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 4 743 225

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/58

---

Action brought on 3 September 2013 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE)

(Case T-478/13)

2013/C 344/106

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NumberFour AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Götz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inaer Helicópteros, SA (Mutxamel, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2013 given in Case R 1000/2012-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2013 given in Case R 1000/2012-5;

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

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENFORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 059 624

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EINFOREX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 6 530 927

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/58

---

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — You-View.tv/OHMI — YouView TV (YouView+)

(Case T-480/13)

2013/C 344/107

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: You-View.tv (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2013 given in Case R 2112/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2013 given in Case R 2112/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘YouView+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 286 061

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark in red and white containing verbal elements ‘You View You-View.tv’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — Benelux trade mark No 838 408

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/59

---

Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission

(Case T-483/13)

2013/C 344/108

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Athanassios Oikonomopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and I. Zarzoura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Award damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award damages;

| — | Declare that a series of OLAF’s actions and measures are legally non- existent and constitute inadmissible evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that a series of OLAF’s actions and measures are legally non- existent and constitute inadmissible evidence.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by OLAF, as it was not entitled to conduct an investigation in the context of contractual relations between the Commission and a third party and acted ultra vires in the relevant investigation infringing several articles of the relevant legal framework, such as Council Regulation No 2185/96 (1) and Regulation No 1073/1999 (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by OLAF, as it was not entitled to conduct an investigation in the context of contractual relations between the Commission and a third party and acted ultra vires in the relevant investigation infringing several articles of the relevant legal framework, such as Council Regulation No 2185/96 (1) and Regulation No 1073/1999 (2).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 (3) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, violation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1073/1999, breach of the obligation to maintain confidentiality, violation of the right to private life, violation of the principle of sound administration, as OLAF and different DGs of the Commission acted unlawfully when processed personal data of the applicant and transmitted such personal data within the Commission, and third parties. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 (3) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, violation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1073/1999, breach of the obligation to maintain confidentiality, violation of the right to private life, violation of the principle of sound administration, as OLAF and different DGs of the Commission acted unlawfully when processed personal data of the applicant and transmitted such personal data within the Commission, and third parties.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defense, as the applicant has very limited information on the facts that concern him in the context of the relevant investigation and consequently was not given the opportunity to defend himself against any eventual accusation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defense, as the applicant has very limited information on the facts that concern him in the context of the relevant investigation and consequently was not given the opportunity to defend himself against any eventual accusation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ 1996 L 292, p. 2)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1)

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/59

---

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)

(Case T-484/13)

2013/C 344/109

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lumene Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2013 given in Case R 187/2013-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2013 given in Case R 187/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE YOUTH EXPERTS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 — International registration No 1 112 578 designating the European Union

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/60

---

Action brought on 11 September 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Kraft Foods Global Brands (TRIDENT PURE)

(Case T-491/13)

2013/C 344/110

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (Northfield, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2013 given in Case R 706/2012-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2013 given in Case R 706/2012-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of present proceedings and the other party to pay the costs of present proceedings, as well as those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of present proceedings and the other party to pay the costs of present proceedings, as well as those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRIDENT PURE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 9 352 642

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘PURE WHITE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 6 771 869; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 8 813 487; the figurative mark in white, light blue, blue and green containing the verbal element ‘PURE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration 9 291 634; the word mark ‘PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — French trade mark No 63 431 610; the figurative mark in various shades of blue and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 932 886 with effect in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — Italian trade mark No 1 280 532; the figurative mark in various shades of blue and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — Benelux trade mark No 820 421; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE WHITE’ for goods in Class 30 — Benelux trade mark No 864 652

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Admitted the appeal and rejected the opposition

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/60

---

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt)

(Case T-494/13)

2013/C 344/111

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1192/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1192/2012-4;

| — | Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 820 313

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/61

---

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (Watt)

(Case T-495/13)

2013/C 344/112

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1193/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1193/2012-4;

| — | Order the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 090 471

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/61

---

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — McCullough v Cedefop

(Case T-496/13)

2013/C 344/113

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colin Boyd McCullough (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: G. Matsos, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Cedefop’s refusal dated 15 July 2013, to grant to the applicant access to certain documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Cedefop’s refusal dated 15 July 2013, to grant to the applicant access to certain documents;

| — | Order Cedefop to provide to the applicant the requested documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Cedefop to provide to the applicant the requested documents;

| — | Authorise according to Article 1(3) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union that the Greek national authorities may violate the premises and buildings of Cedefop, with the purpose of locating and providing the documents at issue and of investigating possible crimes, which may have been committed by any person in relation thereto; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Authorise according to Article 1(3) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union that the Greek national authorities may violate the premises and buildings of Cedefop, with the purpose of locating and providing the documents at issue and of investigating possible crimes, which may have been committed by any person in relation thereto; and

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

—

Order Cedefop 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, alleging that Cedefop has infringed EU law in the contested decision through erroneous interpretation of Art. 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has infringed EU law in the contested decision through erroneous interpretation of Art. 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has infringed EU law through erroneous interpretation of Art. 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has infringed EU law through erroneous interpretation of Art. 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the behaviour of the Acting Director of Cedefop is at least questionable, when he claims that it is questionable whether the KMS-Steering Group Meetings Minutes, among the requested documents, have ever existed, as he should be aware of their existence (or non-existence), because he was Deputy Director of Cedefop during a long period (one year) that such documents were being produced. Such behaviour makes the investigation of the premises of Cedefop by the competent national authorities necessary. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the behaviour of the Acting Director of Cedefop is at least questionable, when he claims that it is questionable whether the KMS-Steering Group Meetings Minutes, among the requested documents, have ever existed, as he should be aware of their existence (or non-existence), because he was Deputy Director of Cedefop during a long period (one year) that such documents were being produced. Such behaviour makes the investigation of the premises of Cedefop by the competent national authorities necessary.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has failed to adopt practical arrangements for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that the respective Detailed Rules, which the Commission has adopted should be applied by analogy. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has failed to adopt practical arrangements for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that the respective Detailed Rules, which the Commission has adopted should be applied by analogy.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that Cedefop’s refusal to provide access to the requested documents violates the applicant’s rights as a Defendant in criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Cedefop’s refusal to provide access to the requested documents violates the applicant’s rights as a Defendant in criminal proceedings.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/62

---

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Neuromodulation v OHIM (PRECISION SPECTRA)

(Case T-497/13)

2013/C 344/114

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. (Valencia, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2013 given in Case R 2099/2012-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2013 given in Case R 2099/2012-5;

| — | Declare Community trade mark application 009725912 to be eligible for registration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Community trade mark application 009725912 to be eligible for registration; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRECISION SPECTRA’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 9 725 912

Decision of the Examiner: Partially refused the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of 7(1)(b), (c) and 65(2) CTMR.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/62

---

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)

(Case T-498/13)

2013/C 344/115

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 611/2012-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 611/2012-1; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘NAMMU’ for gods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 5 238 704

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application was based on Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57 (2) and (3) CTMR.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/63

---

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)

(Case T-499/13)

2013/C 344/116

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTER SCHEDULING’ for goods in Class 9 — International registration No 1 093 837 designating the European Union

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/63

---

Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission

(Case T-505/13)

2013/C 344/117

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Sona (Curaçao, formerly Netherlands Antilles) and Nao NV (Curaçao) (represented by: R. Martens, K. Beirnaert and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2013, of which the applicants had knowledge only at the end of July 2013, not to designate Stichting SONA as delegated entity for the implementation tasks of the single programming document for the former Netherlands Antilles under the 10th European Development Fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2013, of which the applicants had knowledge only at the end of July 2013, not to designate Stichting SONA as delegated entity for the implementation tasks of the single programming document for the former Netherlands Antilles under the 10th European Development Fund;

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission to grant the implementation tasks for this programming document to International Management Group (IMG). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission to grant the implementation tasks for this programming document to International Management Group (IMG).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the right to protection of personal data and the secrecy or confidentiality of investigations, as protected by Articles 8 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and by Article 16 TFEU.
  The applicants allege that the defendant sent letters to the Netherlands Government about a pending investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in respect of which no (final) report has yet been produced, but which expressly name the applicants and which indicate, or at least very strongly suggest, that the applicants are involved in irregularities in the context of the management of the 9th European Development Fund project, and accordingly, on the basis of that allegation, decided that the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund for the projects on the former Netherlands Antilles could not be assigned to the applicants. At the same time, the applicants were never designated by OLAF as a ‘person concerned’, so they have never been aware that they had to defend themselves as a ‘person concerned’, thus making it impossible for them to defend themselves since, up to now, they have still not heard what the concrete allegations, allegedly existing against them, and against which they must defend themselves, are. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the right to protection of personal data and the secrecy or confidentiality of investigations, as protected by Articles 8 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and by Article 16 TFEU.

The applicants allege that the defendant sent letters to the Netherlands Government about a pending investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in respect of which no (final) report has yet been produced, but which expressly name the applicants and which indicate, or at least very strongly suggest, that the applicants are involved in irregularities in the context of the management of the 9th European Development Fund project, and accordingly, on the basis of that allegation, decided that the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund for the projects on the former Netherlands Antilles could not be assigned to the applicants. At the same time, the applicants were never designated by OLAF as a ‘person concerned’, so they have never been aware that they had to defend themselves as a ‘person concerned’, thus making it impossible for them to defend themselves since, up to now, they have still not heard what the concrete allegations, allegedly existing against them, and against which they must defend themselves, are.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the protection legitimate expectations by creating a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicants that they would be responsible for the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund as regards the former Netherlands Antilles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the protection legitimate expectations by creating a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicants that they would be responsible for the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund as regards the former Netherlands Antilles.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality because of the Commission’s exclusion of the applicants solely due to the existence of ‘preliminary findings’ in an OLAF investigation which mention ‘potential problems’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality because of the Commission’s exclusion of the applicants solely due to the existence of ‘preliminary findings’ in an OLAF investigation which mention ‘potential problems’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to be heard.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of transparency as set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008, (1) and the duty to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of transparency as set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008, (1) and the duty to give reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2304/2002 (2) and of the single programming document for the 10th European Development Fund. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2304/2002 (2) and of the single programming document for the 10th European Development Fund.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 since the conditions for the implementation of the financing, in the context of assigning joint management to IMG have not been fulfilled. The second contested decision is therefore unlawful as well. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 since the conditions for the implementation of the financing, in the context of assigning joint management to IMG have not been fulfilled. The second contested decision is therefore unlawful as well.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 of 18 February 2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund (OJ 2008 L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2304/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing Council Decision 2001/822/EC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (Overseas Association Decision) (OJ 2002 L 348, p. 82).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/64

---

Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)

(Case T-509/13)

2013/C 344/118

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH (Euskirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH (Bern, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 July 2013 (Case R 2211/2012-2) in such a way that opposition No B17963622 is rejected in its entirety, and |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 July 2013 (Case R 2211/2012-2) in such a way that opposition No B17963622 is rejected in its entirety, and

| — | order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘NORTHWOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 20, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 412 776

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration with protection in respect of the European Union of the mark ‘NORTHBROOK’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/65

---

Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)

(Case T-519/13)

2013/C 344/119

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Leder & Schuh International AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: S. Korn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valerie Epple (Bronnen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal, reject the opposition and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal, reject the opposition and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘VALDASAAR’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 591 249

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Valerie Epple

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Val d’Azur’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/65

---

Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Philip Morris Benelux/Commission

(Case T-520/13)

2013/C 344/120

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Benelux (Antwerpen, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and P. Harrison, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the European Commission, dated 15 July 2013 (the ‘contested measure’), in which the Commission refused the applicant’s request for access to drafts of the Impact Assessment Report accompanying the Commission’s proposal for a revised Tobacco Products Directive; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the European Commission, dated 15 July 2013 (the ‘contested measure’), in which the Commission refused the applicant’s request for access to drafts of the Impact Assessment Report accompanying the Commission’s proposal for a revised Tobacco Products Directive; 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 4(3) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), by asserting and concluding that both the first and second subparagraphs of Article 4(3) of the such regulation (which are mutually exclusive) could apply simultaneously to the same set of facts at issue. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 4(3) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), by asserting and concluding that both the first and second subparagraphs of Article 4(3) of the such regulation (which are mutually exclusive) could apply simultaneously to the same set of facts at issue.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission breached Article 4(3)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by concluding that the narrow and limited exception set out in that subparagraph justified its refusal to grant disclosure of any of the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission breached Article 4(3)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by concluding that the narrow and limited exception set out in that subparagraph justified its refusal to grant disclosure of any of the requested documents.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission breached Article 4(3)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, because the requested documents do not have the status of opinions and thus are not covered by the exception in Article 4(3)(2) of the regulation in question. Further, (i) disclosure of the requested documents would not undermine the Commission’s decision-making process; and (ii) there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission breached Article 4(3)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, because the requested documents do not have the status of opinions and thus are not covered by the exception in Article 4(3)(2) of the regulation in question. Further, (i) disclosure of the requested documents would not undermine the Commission’s decision-making process; and (ii) there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents.

---

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/66

---

Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-527/13)

2013/C 344/121

Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, P. Grasso, lawyers, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, on State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, on State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy);

| — | in the alternative, annul the part of that decision (points (b),(c) and (d) of Article 2(4)) by which the obligation to recover aid is extended to cover the aid resulting from Council Decision No 2003/530/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the part of that decision (points (b),(c) and (d) of Article 2(4)) by which the obligation to recover aid is extended to cover the aid resulting from Council Decision No 2003/530/EC;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government contests Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, relating to State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy).

By that decision, the European Commission:

| — | declared that the deferral of payment of the milk levy due by 31 December 2010, adopted by Italy in that very month (December 2010), constitutes – also on account of the procedure to be followed for its implementation – State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

declared that the deferral of payment of the milk levy due by 31 December 2010, adopted by Italy in that very month (December 2010), constitutes – also on account of the procedure to be followed for its implementation – State aid incompatible with the internal market;

| — | declared that that deferral of payment amounted to failure to respect the conditions laid down in Council Decision No 2003/530/EC, constituting in consequence State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

declared that that deferral of payment amounted to failure to respect the conditions laid down in Council Decision No 2003/530/EC, constituting in consequence State aid incompatible with the internal market;

| — | directed Italy to arrange to have the incompatible aid, together with interest, refunded by the beneficiaries of the deferral of payment. |
| --- | --- |

—

directed Italy to arrange to have the incompatible aid, together with interest, refunded by the beneficiaries of the deferral of payment.

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas:

| 1. | First plea: infringement of Article 3(7) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (OJ 2007 L 337, p. 35).






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied that provision on the basis of the erroneous assumption that the existing aid, authorised by Council Decision No 2003/530/EC of 16 July 2003, constituted the maximum amount that could be granted to milk producers and that, accordingly, any additional aid measure — even falling within the de minimis exception (and even entailing only an absolutely marginal amount) — would mean that, ipso jure, the aggregate amount of the aid would exceed the permissible level. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea: infringement of Article 3(7) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (OJ 2007 L 337, p. 35).

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied that provision on the basis of the erroneous assumption that the existing aid, authorised by Council Decision No 2003/530/EC of 16 July 2003, constituted the maximum amount that could be granted to milk producers and that, accordingly, any additional aid measure — even falling within the de minimis exception (and even entailing only an absolutely marginal amount) — would mean that, ipso jure, the aggregate amount of the aid would exceed the permissible level.

| 2. | Second plea: infringement of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007, Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1), and failure to state adequate reasons.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 — which concerns the aggregation of various forms of aid, each of which, considered in isolation, comes within the de minimis exception — to a case in which the de minimis aid was added to existing aid. Furthermore, the decision erred by characterising the contested measure as an alteration of existing aid, which is significant for the purposes of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation No 659/1999. The six-month deferral of the deadline for paying one of the annual instalments constituted a separate measure and, in any event, did not result in a substantial alteration of the existing aid. Moreover, it did not culminate in an increase exceeding 20 % of the existing aid scheme’s original budget and had no bearing on the assessment of the compatibility of that aid scheme. In any event, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons as regards those points. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: infringement of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007, Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1), and failure to state adequate reasons.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 — which concerns the aggregation of various forms of aid, each of which, considered in isolation, comes within the de minimis exception — to a case in which the de minimis aid was added to existing aid. Furthermore, the decision erred by characterising the contested measure as an alteration of existing aid, which is significant for the purposes of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation No 659/1999. The six-month deferral of the deadline for paying one of the annual instalments constituted a separate measure and, in any event, did not result in a substantial alteration of the existing aid. Moreover, it did not culminate in an increase exceeding 20 % of the existing aid scheme’s original budget and had no bearing on the assessment of the compatibility of that aid scheme. In any event, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons as regards those points.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/66

---

Action brought on 10 October 2013 — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission

(Case T-538/13)

2013/C 344/122

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Verein Natura Havel eV (Berlin, Germany) and H.-P. Vierhaus (Berlin) (represented by: O. Austilat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General Environment — of 24 June 2013 and of the European Commission — Secretariat-General — of 3 September 2013 by which access to the letter of formal notice of the Commission opening infringement procedure No 2013/4000 against the Federal Republic of Germany of 30 May 2013 was refused; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General Environment — of 24 June 2013 and of the European Commission — Secretariat-General — of 3 September 2013 by which access to the letter of formal notice of the Commission opening infringement procedure No 2013/4000 against the Federal Republic of Germany of 30 May 2013 was refused;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to access information
  The applicants maintain, in the first place, that the contested Commission decision infringes their right to information conferred by Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicants submit that the provisions referred to were designed to create maximum transparency and that exceptions must be narrowly construed. In addition, according to case-law, stringent requirements must be set as regards the proof of serious interference with the investigation. The contested decision does not fulfil that requirement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to access information

The applicants maintain, in the first place, that the contested Commission decision infringes their right to information conferred by Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicants submit that the provisions referred to were designed to create maximum transparency and that exceptions must be narrowly construed. In addition, according to case-law, stringent requirements must be set as regards the proof of serious interference with the investigation. The contested decision does not fulfil that requirement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the examination of partial access
  The applicants further claim that the examination carried out by the Commission, refusing a merely partial access to information, is vitiated by an error of law. The considerations mentioned to that effect in the decision are, they submit, incorrect and infringe the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the examination of partial access

The applicants further claim that the examination carried out by the Commission, refusing a merely partial access to information, is vitiated by an error of law. The considerations mentioned to that effect in the decision are, they submit, incorrect and infringe the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
  In addition, the applicants submit, the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements to be set in respect of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons

In addition, the applicants submit, the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements to be set in respect of the obligation to state reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
  The applicants also allege infringement of their right, arising from the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to receive information without interference by public authority. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The applicants also allege infringement of their right, arising from the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to receive information without interference by public authority.

---

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

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/67

---

Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-542/13)

2013/C 344/123

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4474 final of 18 July 2013 on the non-application of certain provisions of the Decree of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 8 June 2012 establishing detailed rules with regard to the liberalisation of international rail passenger transport; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4474 final of 18 July 2013 on the non-application of certain provisions of the Decree of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 8 June 2012 establishing detailed rules with regard to the liberalisation of international rail passenger transport;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly based the contested decision on Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. (1) The applicant argues that, if the Commission is not in agreement with the manner in which the Netherlands legislature implements the Directive, it may make use of Article 258 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly based the contested decision on Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. (1) The applicant argues that, if the Commission is not in agreement with the manner in which the Netherlands legislature implements the Directive, it may make use of Article 258 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of loyal cooperation, following expiry of the ‘EU Pilot’, (2) in declaring Netherlands legislation inapplicable by virtue of Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. The applicant argues that it was reasonably entitled to assume, when answering the Commission’s questions under ‘EU Pilot’, that the shared information would be used by the Commission exclusively in (the event of) infringement proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of loyal cooperation, following expiry of the ‘EU Pilot’, (2) in declaring Netherlands legislation inapplicable by virtue of Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. The applicant argues that it was reasonably entitled to assume, when answering the Commission’s questions under ‘EU Pilot’, that the shared information would be used by the Commission exclusively in (the event of) infringement proceedings.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging defective grounds and an incorrect interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU in that it was held that the criteria for determining ‘the principal purpose of the service’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the Directive, may not be determined in advance, and in that it was held that it is for the regulatory body to set out the criteria for determining ‘economic equilibrium’ within the meaning of Article 11(2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging defective grounds and an incorrect interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU in that it was held that the criteria for determining ‘the principal purpose of the service’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the Directive, may not be determined in advance, and in that it was held that it is for the regulatory body to set out the criteria for determining ‘economic equilibrium’ within the meaning of Article 11(2).

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

(2)  See the communication of the Commission ‘A Europe of Results — Applying Community Law’ (COM(2007) 502 final).

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/68

---

Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Dyson v Commission

(Case T-544/13)

2013/C 344/124

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Batchelor, Solicitor, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1) in its entirety, or in any event those provisions relating to cleaning performance and energy efficiency; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1) in its entirety, or in any event those provisions relating to cleaning performance and energy efficiency; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in relation with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in relation with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the contested regulation is unlawful and relies in that respect on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its competence under Article 10(1) of the enabling legislation, Directive 2010/30/EU (1), when it adopted this delegated act, as:






  — | Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of energy consumption during use. The contested regulation misleads consumers as to the vacuum cleaner’s energy efficiency because cleaning performance is tested only when the vacuum cleaner has an empty receptacle and so not ‘during use’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its competence under Article 10(1) of the enabling legislation, Directive 2010/30/EU (1), when it adopted this delegated act, as:

—

Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of energy consumption during use. The contested regulation misleads consumers as to the vacuum cleaner’s energy efficiency because cleaning performance is tested only when the vacuum cleaner has an empty receptacle and so not ‘during use’;

| — | Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of essential resources consumed by an appliance during use, namely the dust bags and filters consumables. The delegated act provides no such information to consumers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of essential resources consumed by an appliance during use, namely the dust bags and filters consumables. The delegated act provides no such information to consumers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) because the contested regulation does not explain why there is insufficient ‘technological progress’ to permit testing of energy consumption/cleaning performance in a dust-loaded state. Nor does it explain why the Commission postponed dust-loading for consideration only in five years’ time. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) because the contested regulation does not explain why there is insufficient ‘technological progress’ to permit testing of energy consumption/cleaning performance in a dust-loaded state. Nor does it explain why the Commission postponed dust-loading for consideration only in five years’ time.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the fundamental principle of equality by adopting a contested regulation which discriminates in favour of bagged vacuum cleaners to the disadvantage of bagless vacuum cleaners and/or vacuum cleaners based on cyclonic technology. Loss of suction due to clogging — a feature particularly of bagged vacuum cleaners — cannot be detected by pristine state testing. The relative merits of bagless and cyclonic technology vacuum cleaners cannot be readily identified by consumers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the fundamental principle of equality by adopting a contested regulation which discriminates in favour of bagged vacuum cleaners to the disadvantage of bagless vacuum cleaners and/or vacuum cleaners based on cyclonic technology. Loss of suction due to clogging — a feature particularly of bagged vacuum cleaners — cannot be detected by pristine state testing. The relative merits of bagless and cyclonic technology vacuum cleaners cannot be readily identified by consumers.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 1)

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/68

---

Order of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — RiskMetrics Solutions v OHIM — (RISKMANAGER)

(Case T-557/12) (1)

2013/C 344/125

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex

(Case F-116/12) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agent - Appraisal report - Duty to state reasons - Annual dialogue with the reporting officer - Setting objectives)

2013/C 344/126

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S.Vuorensola, Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s staff report and claim for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Rejects the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the application.

| 2. | Orders Mr Wahlström to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Wahlström to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 08.12.2012, p. 39.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/69

---

Action brought on 3 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-81/13)

2013/C 344/127

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted in the promotion exercise 2012.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision, notified by the Administrative Notices No 27/2012 of 26 October 2012, not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted in the promotion exercise 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, notified by the Administrative Notices No 27/2012 of 26 October 2012, not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted in the promotion exercise 2012;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/69

---

Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-83/13)

2013/C 344/128

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Joassart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision, notified by electronic mail of 1 February 2013, taken by the Head of Unit at the (O.I.B) Office of Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels to remove the applicant from her duties as a nurse and to assign her to the ‘biberonnerie’ (baby feeding unit) from 4 February 2013. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, notified by electronic mail of 1 February 2013, taken by the Head of Unit at the (O.I.B) Office of Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels to remove the applicant from her duties as a nurse and to assign her to the ‘biberonnerie’ (baby feeding unit) from 4 February 2013.

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/69

---

Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-87/13)

2013/C 344/129

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and others (represented by: A. Salerno, B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament relating to the new distribution of rights of access to the mail box of the SAFE union.

Form of order sought

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that the European Parliament is responsible for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested decision, and award them compensation with respect to all of that damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Parliament is responsible for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested decision, and award them compensation with respect to all of that damage;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---