# Official Journal C 78/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.078.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 78 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.078.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 78

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 078/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 71, 8.3.2014 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 078/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 71, 8.3.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 078/02 | Case C-372/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia | 2 |
| 2014/C 078/03 | Case C-462/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE | 2 |
| 2014/C 078/04 | Case C-640/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 2 |
| 2014/C 078/05 | Case C-655/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 12 December 2013 — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen | 3 |
| 2014/C 078/06 | Case C-662/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 December 2013 — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública | 3 |
| 2014/C 078/07 | Case C-687/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg | 3 |
| 2014/C 078/08 | Case C-688/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona (España) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L., other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria | 4 |
| 2014/C 078/09 | Case C-690/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos | 5 |
| 2014/C 078/10 | Case C-23/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet | 5 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 078/11 | Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 6 |
| 2014/C 078/12 | Case T-27/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue — Fines — Application for annulment — Meaning of undertaking — Principle of the legality of offences and penalties — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Late notification of the investigation — Maximum of 10 % of turnover — Punishment of two infringements in one decision — Concept of a single infringement — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Duration of the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Symbolic fine — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 6 |
| 2014/C 078/13 | Case T-40/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Application for annulment — Rights of the defence — Late notification of Commission’s investigation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Liability of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Duration of the infringements — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Fines imposed on a parent company differing in amount from those imposed on a subsidiary — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 7 |
| 2014/C 078/14 | Case T-342/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — CEEES and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish service station market — Decision dismissing a complaint — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Failure to fulfil obligations made compulsory by a Commission decision — Reopening of the proceedings — Fines — Periodic penalty payments) | 7 |
| 2014/C 078/15 | Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT — Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 8 |
| 2014/C 078/16 | Case T-127/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM — Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 8 |
| 2014/C 078/17 | Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Adaptation of the claim — Time-limit — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Rights of defence) | 9 |
| 2014/C 078/18 | Case T-339/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 9 |
| 2014/C 078/19 | Case T-357/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 10 |
| 2014/C 078/20 | Case T-156/10: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and CEPES v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Spanish legislation laying down measures in favour of agricultural cooperatives following the fuel price increase — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Professional associations — Lack of individual concern — No recovery — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2014/C 078/21 | Case T-596/11: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Absence of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility) | 11 |
| 2014/C 078/22 | Case T-141/12: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Pro-Duo v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (GO!) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 11 |
| 2014/C 078/23 | Case T-468/12: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Faktor, B. i W. Gęsina v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility) | 11 |
| 2014/C 078/24 | Case T-168/13: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — EPAW v Commission (Action for annulment — Legal person governed by private law — Absence of proof of existence in law — Article 44(5)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2014/C 078/25 | Case T-670/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D'Agostino v Commission | 12 |
| 2014/C 078/26 | Case T-681/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO) | 13 |
| 2014/C 078/27 | Case T-715/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello) | 13 |
| 2014/C 078/28 | Case T-28/14: Action brought on 14 January 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Representation of a seated figure) | 14 |
| 2014/C 078/29 | Case T-46/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE) | 14 |
| 2014/C 078/30 | Case T-48/14: Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Pfizer v Commission and EMA | 15 |
| 2014/C 078/31 | Case T-50/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL) | 15 |
| 2014/C 078/32 | Case T-55/14: Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland) | 16 |
| 2014/C 078/33 | Case T-63/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Iran Insurance v Council | 16 |
| 2014/C 078/34 | Case T-437/10: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Gap granen & producten v Commission | 17 |
| 2014/C 078/35 | Case T-658/11: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN) | 18 |
| 2014/C 078/36 | Case T-659/11: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations) | 18 |
| 2014/C 078/37 | Case T-389/12: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — EDF v Commission | 18 |
| 2014/C 078/38 | Case T-415/12: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Xeda International and Others v Commission | 18 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 078/39 | Case F-102/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Van Asbroeck v Parliament (Civil service — Classification in grade — Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category following the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations — Compensatory allowance — Decision to re-grade officials benefitting from that compensatory allowance) | 19 |
| 2014/C 078/40 | Case F-114/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Nationals of the State in whose territory their place of employment is situated — Habitual residence) | 19 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 078/02

Case C-372/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia

2

2014/C 078/03

Case C-462/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

2

2014/C 078/04

Case C-640/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

2

2014/C 078/05

Case C-655/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 12 December 2013 — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

3

2014/C 078/06

Case C-662/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 December 2013 — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública

3

2014/C 078/07

Case C-687/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

3

2014/C 078/08

Case C-688/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona (España) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L., other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

o

4

2014/C 078/09

Case C-690/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos

5

2014/C 078/10

Case C-23/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

5

General Court

2014/C 078/11

Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Unlimited jurisdiction)

6

2014/C 078/12

Case T-27/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue — Fines — Application for annulment — Meaning of undertaking — Principle of the legality of offences and penalties — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Late notification of the investigation — Maximum of 10 % of turnover — Punishment of two infringements in one decision — Concept of a single infringement — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Duration of the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Symbolic fine — Unlimited jurisdiction)

6

2014/C 078/13

Case T-40/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Application for annulment — Rights of the defence — Late notification of Commission’s investigation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Liability of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Duration of the infringements — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Fines imposed on a parent company differing in amount from those imposed on a subsidiary — Unlimited jurisdiction)

7

2014/C 078/14

Case T-342/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — CEEES and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish service station market — Decision dismissing a complaint — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Failure to fulfil obligations made compulsory by a Commission decision — Reopening of the proceedings — Fines — Periodic penalty payments)

7

2014/C 078/15

Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT — Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

8

2014/C 078/16

Case T-127/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM — Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

8

2014/C 078/17

Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Adaptation of the claim — Time-limit — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Rights of defence)

9

2014/C 078/18

Case T-339/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

9

2014/C 078/19

Case T-357/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

10

2014/C 078/20

Case T-156/10: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and CEPES v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Spanish legislation laying down measures in favour of agricultural cooperatives following the fuel price increase — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Professional associations — Lack of individual concern — No recovery — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

10

2014/C 078/21

Case T-596/11: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Absence of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

11

2014/C 078/22

Case T-141/12: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Pro-Duo v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (GO!) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

11

2014/C 078/23

Case T-468/12: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Faktor, B. i W. Gęsina v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)

11

2014/C 078/24

Case T-168/13: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — EPAW v Commission (Action for annulment — Legal person governed by private law — Absence of proof of existence in law — Article 44(5)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2014/C 078/25

Case T-670/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D'Agostino v Commission

12

2014/C 078/26

Case T-681/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)

13

2014/C 078/27

Case T-715/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

13

2014/C 078/28

Case T-28/14: Action brought on 14 January 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Representation of a seated figure)

14

2014/C 078/29

Case T-46/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)

14

2014/C 078/30

Case T-48/14: Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Pfizer v Commission and EMA

15

2014/C 078/31

Case T-50/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL)

15

2014/C 078/32

Case T-55/14: Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)

16

2014/C 078/33

Case T-63/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Iran Insurance v Council

16

2014/C 078/34

Case T-437/10: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Gap granen & producten v Commission

17

2014/C 078/35

Case T-658/11: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN)

18

2014/C 078/36

Case T-659/11: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)

18

2014/C 078/37

Case T-389/12: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — EDF v Commission

18

2014/C 078/38

Case T-415/12: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Xeda International and Others v Commission

18

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 078/39

Case F-102/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Van Asbroeck v Parliament (Civil service — Classification in grade — Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category following the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations — Compensatory allowance — Decision to re-grade officials benefitting from that compensatory allowance)

19

2014/C 078/40

Case F-114/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Nationals of the State in whose territory their place of employment is situated — Habitual residence)

19

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/1

---

2014/C 78/01

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

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014

Past publications

OJ C 61, 1.3.2014

OJ C 52, 22.2.2014

OJ C 45, 15.2.2014

OJ C 39, 8.2.2014

OJ C 31, 1.2.2014

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia

(Case C-372/13)

2014/C 78/02

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE

Defendant: SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia

The Court (Third Chamber) ruled by reasoned order of 30 January 2014.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

(Case C-462/13)

2014/C 78/03

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE

Defendant: Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

The Court (Third Chamber) ruled by reasoned order of 30 January 2014.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/2

---

Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-640/13)

2014/C 78/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which was levied contrary to Union law, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which was levied contrary to Union law, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

The national legislation in issue

Section 107 of the Finance Act 2007 retroactively deprives taxpayers of the right to recover unlawfully charged tax.

The main argument

In the absence of any provision of EU law on the matter, it is for the national law of each Member State to determine the procedural conditions governing actions to vindicate the rights enjoyed by citizens under EU law. However, that procedural autonomy is subject to observance of the principles of effectiveness and equivalence and to other generally applicable principles of law, such as legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. Section 107 of the Finance Act 2007 fails to observe those principles and is thus incompatible with Article 4(3) TEU.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 12 December 2013 — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-655/13)

2014/C 78/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Mertens

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Question referred

Should Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as precluding a frontier worker who, immediately after a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a Member State, is employed for fewer hours by another employer in the same Member State, from being classified as a partially unemployed frontier worker?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2 [DE, FR, IT, NL]; English special edition: Series I Volume 1971(II) P. 416-463).

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 December 2013 — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-662/13)

2014/C 78/06

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Question referred

When the tax authorities suspect the existence of an abusive practice designed to obtain a VAT refund and Portuguese law provides for a mandatory preliminary procedure applicable to abusive practices in taxation matters, is that procedure to be regarded as inapplicable to VAT, given the Community origin of that tax?

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

(Case C-687/13)

2014/C 78/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Question referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona (España) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L., other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

(Case C-688/13)

2014/C 78/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L.

Other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the guarantee, that the transferee acquiring an undertaking in insolvency or a production unit of that undertaking will not take on liability for debts arising out of social security debts incurred before the award of the production unit or out of previous employment-related debts when the insolvency proceedings give rise to protection at least equivalent to that provided for in the Community directives, be considered to relate uniquely and exclusively to debts directly linked to employment contracts or employment relationships or, in the framework of overall protection of the rights of employees and the safeguarding of employment, must that guarantee be extended to employment-related or social security debts incurred before the award to a third party? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the guarantee, that the transferee acquiring an undertaking in insolvency or a production unit of that undertaking will not take on liability for debts arising out of social security debts incurred before the award of the production unit or out of previous employment-related debts when the insolvency proceedings give rise to protection at least equivalent to that provided for in the Community directives, be considered to relate uniquely and exclusively to debts directly linked to employment contracts or employment relationships or, in the framework of overall protection of the rights of employees and the safeguarding of employment, must that guarantee be extended to employment-related or social security debts incurred before the award to a third party?

| 2. | In the same context of guaranteeing the rights of employees, can the purchaser of the production unit obtain from the court dealing with the insolvency and authorising the award a guarantee, not only in relation to rights arising from the employment contracts but also in relation to debts incurred before the award that the insolvent company may owe to employees whose employment relationship has already been terminated or in relation to earlier social security debts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the same context of guaranteeing the rights of employees, can the purchaser of the production unit obtain from the court dealing with the insolvency and authorising the award a guarantee, not only in relation to rights arising from the employment contracts but also in relation to debts incurred before the award that the insolvent company may owe to employees whose employment relationship has already been terminated or in relation to earlier social security debts?

| 3. | Does the person who acquires an insolvent undertaking or a production unit and undertakes to safeguard all or some of the contracts of employment, and accepts liability for them by subrogation, obtain the guarantee that there will not be claimed from him or transferred to him other obligations of the transferor connected to the contracts or [Or. 11] relationships where he accepts liability by subrogation, particularly earlier employment risks or social security debts? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the person who acquires an insolvent undertaking or a production unit and undertakes to safeguard all or some of the contracts of employment, and accepts liability for them by subrogation, obtain the guarantee that there will not be claimed from him or transferred to him other obligations of the transferor connected to the contracts or [Or. 11] relationships where he accepts liability by subrogation, particularly earlier employment risks or social security debts?

| 4. | In brief, as regards the transfer of production units or undertakings that have been judicially or administratively declared insolvent and in liquidation, can Directive 2001/23 (1) be interpreted not only as permitting the safeguarding of contracts of employment but also as making it certain that the purchaser will not have to be liable for debts incurred before the award of that production unit[?] |
| --- | --- |

4.

In brief, as regards the transfer of production units or undertakings that have been judicially or administratively declared insolvent and in liquidation, can Directive 2001/23 (1) be interpreted not only as permitting the safeguarding of contracts of employment but also as making it certain that the purchaser will not have to be liable for debts incurred before the award of that production unit[?]

| 5. | Does the wording of Article 149(2) of the Ley Concursal Española (Spanish Law on Insolvency), in referring to the transfer of an undertaking, constitute the provision of national law required by Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23 for the exception to operate? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the wording of Article 149(2) of the Ley Concursal Española (Spanish Law on Insolvency), in referring to the transfer of an undertaking, constitute the provision of national law required by Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23 for the exception to operate?

| 6. | And, if this is so, must the award order issued by the court conducting the insolvency proceedings and which contains these guarantees and safeguards at all events be binding on all other courts or in administrative proceedings that may be brought against the new purchaser in respect of debts incurred before the date of purchase, with the result, therefore, that Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute cannot render ineffective Article 149(2) and (3) of the Ley Concursal? |
| --- | --- |

6.

And, if this is so, must the award order issued by the court conducting the insolvency proceedings and which contains these guarantees and safeguards at all events be binding on all other courts or in administrative proceedings that may be brought against the new purchaser in respect of debts incurred before the date of purchase, with the result, therefore, that Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute cannot render ineffective Article 149(2) and (3) of the Ley Concursal?

| 7. | If, on the other hand, it were to be considered that Articles 149(2) and (3) of the Ley Concursal do not operate as the exception provided for in Article 5 of the Directive, the Court of Justice is asked to make it clear whether the rules laid down in Article 3(1) of the Directive will affect only the employment-related rights and obligations, strictly speaking, laid down in the contracts in force, so that rights or obligations such as those arising from social security contributions or other obligations in respect of employment contracts already terminated before the insolvency proceedings were initiated are not, in any circumstances, to be regarded as being transferred to the purchaser. |
| --- | --- |

7.

If, on the other hand, it were to be considered that Articles 149(2) and (3) of the Ley Concursal do not operate as the exception provided for in Article 5 of the Directive, the Court of Justice is asked to make it clear whether the rules laid down in Article 3(1) of the Directive will affect only the employment-related rights and obligations, strictly speaking, laid down in the contracts in force, so that rights or obligations such as those arising from social security contributions or other obligations in respect of employment contracts already terminated before the insolvency proceedings were initiated are not, in any circumstances, to be regarded as being transferred to the purchaser.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Thrakis (Greece) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E. v Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos

(Case C-690/13)

2014/C 78/09

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Efetio Thrakis

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias A.E.

Respondents: Agrotiki Trapeza tis Ellados (A.T.E.), Pavlos Sidiropoulos

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | Do the substantive and procedural privileges conferred upon ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ by Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929, in conjunction with Article 26(1) of Law 1914/1990, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Do the substantive and procedural privileges conferred upon ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ by Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929, in conjunction with Article 26(1) of Law 1914/1990, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| (b) | Does the same restriction apply even if it is assumed that ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ continues to engage in activity of ‘public benefit’ under its statutes? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the same restriction apply even if it is assumed that ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ continues to engage in activity of ‘public benefit’ under its statutes?

| 2. | If the answers to questions ‘1.a’ and ‘1.b’ are in the affirmative, should Greece have observed the procedure prescribed by Article 108(3) of that Treaty in order for the privileges in question to remain into force? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answers to questions ‘1.a’ and ‘1.b’ are in the affirmative, should Greece have observed the procedure prescribed by Article 108(3) of that Treaty in order for the privileges in question to remain into force?

| 3. | In the instance in question, must this court not apply Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929 inasmuch as they may be contrary to Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the instance in question, must this court not apply Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929 inasmuch as they may be contrary to Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU?

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

(Case C-23/14)

2014/C 78/10

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Intervener: Bring Citymail Denmark A/S

Questions referred

| 1. | What guidelines should be used to decide whether the application by a dominant undertaking of a rebate scheme with a standardised volume threshold having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference constitutes an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
  In its answer the Court is requested to clarify what relevance it has to the assessment whether the rebate scheme’s thresholds are set in such a way that the rebate scheme applies to the majority of customers on the market.
  In its answer the Court is further requested to clarify what relevance, if any, the dominant undertaking’s prices and costs have to the evaluation pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty of such a rebate scheme (relevance of a ‘competitor as efficient’ test).
  At the same time the Court is requested to clarify what relevance the characteristics of the market have in this connection, including whether the characteristics of the market can justify the foreclosure effect being demonstrated by examinations and analyses other than a ‘competitor as efficient’ test (see, in that regard, paragraph 24 of the Commission’s communication on the application of Article 82). |
| --- | --- |

1.

What guidelines should be used to decide whether the application by a dominant undertaking of a rebate scheme with a standardised volume threshold having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference constitutes an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty?

In its answer the Court is requested to clarify what relevance it has to the assessment whether the rebate scheme’s thresholds are set in such a way that the rebate scheme applies to the majority of customers on the market.

In its answer the Court is further requested to clarify what relevance, if any, the dominant undertaking’s prices and costs have to the evaluation pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty of such a rebate scheme (relevance of a ‘competitor as efficient’ test).

At the same time the Court is requested to clarify what relevance the characteristics of the market have in this connection, including whether the characteristics of the market can justify the foreclosure effect being demonstrated by examinations and analyses other than a ‘competitor as efficient’ test (see, in that regard, paragraph 24 of the Commission’s communication on the application of Article 82).

| 2. | How probable and serious must the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference be for Article 82 of the EC Treaty to apply? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How probable and serious must the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference be for Article 82 of the EC Treaty to apply?

| 3. | Having regard to the answers given to Questions 1 and 2, what specific circumstances must the national court take into account in assessing whether a rebate scheme, in circumstances such as those described in the order for reference (characteristics of the market and the rebate scheme), has or is capable of having such a foreclosure effect in the specific case that it constitutes an abuse covered by Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
  In this connection, is it a requirement that the foreclosure effect is appreciable? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Having regard to the answers given to Questions 1 and 2, what specific circumstances must the national court take into account in assessing whether a rebate scheme, in circumstances such as those described in the order for reference (characteristics of the market and the rebate scheme), has or is capable of having such a foreclosure effect in the specific case that it constitutes an abuse covered by Article 82 of the EC Treaty?

In this connection, is it a requirement that the foreclosure effect is appreciable?

---

General Court

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/6

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2014/C 78/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J. P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-23/10); and CECA SA (La Garenne-Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J.-P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-24/10)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/6

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission

(Case T-27/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue - Fines - Application for annulment - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ - Principle of the legality of offences and penalties - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period - Rights of the defence - Late notification of the investigation - Maximum of 10 % of turnover - Punishment of two infringements in one decision - Concept of a single infringement - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Duration of the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Symbolic fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2014/C 78/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AC-Treuhand AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-40/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Application for annulment - Rights of the defence - Late notification of Commission’s investigation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Liability of a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Duration of the infringements - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Fines imposed on a parent company differing in amount from those imposed on a subsidiary - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2014/C 78/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger, A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, J. Bourke and A. Biolan, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — CEEES and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission

(Case T-342/11) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish service station market - Decision dismissing a complaint - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to fulfil obligations made compulsory by a Commission decision - Reopening of the proceedings - Fines - Periodic penalty payments)

2014/C 78/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES) (Madrid, Spain) and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio (Madrid) (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo and B. Marín Corral, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Muñoz Pérez, then S. Centeno Huerta, and finally A. Rubio González, Abogados del Estado) and Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A. (represented by: J. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and S. Rivero Mena, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2994 final of 28 April 2011 dismissing the complaint brought by the applicants regarding infringements of the competition rules committed by Repsol (Case COMP/39.461).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES) and the Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES) and the Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 78/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) [represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer (Case T-604/11) and T. Boddien, lawyer (Case T-292/12)]

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11;

| 3. | Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder;

| 4. | Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12;

| 5. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11;

| 6. | Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM)

(Case T-127/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM - Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 78/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Meglar, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Noble Gaming Ltd (Prague, Czech Republic)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2011 (Case R 2326/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Noble Gaming Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Free SAS to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Free SAS to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

(Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Adaptation of the claim - Time-limit - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Rights of defence)

2014/C 78/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Cook, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulation in part, firstly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article [32](1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 6); secondly, of Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 33); thirdly, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); fourthly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9); fifthly, the ‘decision letters’ of the Council of 24 January 2012 and 30 November 2012 notifying the applicant of the restrictive measures affecting it; sixthly, Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP of 28 February 2013 amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 58, p. 8); seventhly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1); eighthly, Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts affect the applicant’s situation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair)

(Case T-339/12) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2014/C 78/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes and M. Paes, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 970/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchair)

(Case T-357/12) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an armchair - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2014/C 78/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2012 (Case R 969/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture Lda to pay its own costs and also the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture Lda to pay its own costs and also the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/10

---

Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and CEPES v Commission

(Case T-156/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Spanish legislation laying down measures in favour of agricultural cooperatives following the fuel price increase - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Professional associations - Lack of individual concern - No recovery - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 78/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España (Madrid, Spain), and Confederación Empresarial Española de la Economía Social (CEPES) (Madrid) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Aeescam) (represented by: R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul Commission decision 2010/473/EU of 15 December 2009 relating to measures to support agriculture implemented by Spain following the fuel price increase (OJ 2010 L 235, p.1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and the Confederación Empresarial Española de la Economía Social (CEPES) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and the Confederación Empresarial Española de la Economía Social (CEPES) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Aeescam) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Aeescam) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/11

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council

(Case T-596/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Absence of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 78/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bricmate AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Dackö, A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, and subsequently by A. Polcyn, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Cerame-Unie AISBL (Brussels, Belgium); Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER) (Castellón de la Plana, Spain); Confindustria Ceramica (Sassuolo, Italy); Casalgrande Padana SpA (Casalgrande, Italy); Etruria Design Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Bricmate AB shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Bricmate AB shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

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

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

| 4. | Cerame-Unie AISBL, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Cerame-Unie AISBL, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/11

---

Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Pro-Duo v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (GO!)

(Case T-141/12) (1)

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

2014/C 78/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pro-Duo NV (Ghent, Belgium) (represented initially by T.G. Alkin, subsequently by T.G. Alkin and C. Hall, Barristers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 1373/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Pro-Duo NV.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/11

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Faktor, B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

(Case T-468/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility)

2014/C 78/23

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina, Gęsina Wojciech (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Keppenne and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2012 of 19 June 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 20).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina, Gęsina Wojciech is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina, Gęsina Wojciech is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/12

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — EPAW v Commission

(Case T-168/13) (1)

(Action for annulment - Legal person governed by private law - Absence of proof of existence in law - Article 44(5)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Manifest inadmissibility)

2014/C 78/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by K. Herrmann and P. Oliver, and subsequently by L. Pignatoro Nolin, K. Herrmann and J. Tomkin, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Communication of 6 June 2012 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, entitled ‘Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market’, and of the Commission’s decision of 21 January 2013 rejecting as inadmissible the request made by the applicant for review by the Commission of that communication.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D'Agostino v Commission

(Case T-670/13 P)

2014/C 78/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D'Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission;

| — | Dismiss the action brought by Mr D’Agostino in Case F-93/12 as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the action brought by Mr D’Agostino in Case F-93/12 as unfounded;

| — | Order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present instance;

| — | Order Mr D’Agostino to pay the costs of the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Mr D’Agostino to pay the costs of the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | Stay the proceedings until delivery of the judgment in Case T-368/12 P Commission v Macchia. |
| --- | --- |

—

Stay the proceedings until delivery of the judgment in Case T-368/12 P Commission v Macchia.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging a material error and a distortion of the facts, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) applied its judgment in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published, to the situation of a member of the contract staff who had not sought the renewal of his contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging a material error and a distortion of the facts, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) applied its judgment in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published, to the situation of a member of the contract staff who had not sought the renewal of his contract.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging errors of law, divided into three parts, based on:






  — | an incorrect interpretation of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Staff of the European Union (CEOS) (with regard to paragraphs 56 to 58 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging errors of law, divided into three parts, based on:

—

an incorrect interpretation of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Staff of the European Union (CEOS) (with regard to paragraphs 56 to 58 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | an error of law in the definition of the relationship between the interest of the service and the principle of legality (with regard to paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

an error of law in the definition of the relationship between the interest of the service and the principle of legality (with regard to paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | an infringement of the limits on the judicial review of the CST and the fact that the CST therefore ruled ultra vires (with regard to paragraphs 59, 60 and 63). |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the limits on the judicial review of the CST and the fact that the CST therefore ruled ultra vires (with regard to paragraphs 59, 60 and 63).

| 3. | Third ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons (with regard to paragraphs 57 and 59 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons (with regard to paragraphs 57 and 59 of the judgment under appeal).

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/13

---

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)

(Case T-681/13)

2014/C 78/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Colomer Italy SpA (Sala Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ricolfi, F. Tarocco and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farmaca International SpA (Turin, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present action and consequently annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 3 October 2013, notified on 17 October 2013, given in Case R 1186/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present action and consequently annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 3 October 2013, notified on 17 October 2013, given in Case R 1186/2012-1;

| — | Reject Farmaca International SpA.’s opposition to the registration of the mark ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’, so that that registration is granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject Farmaca International SpA.’s opposition to the registration of the mark ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’, so that that registration is granted;

| — | Order that the applicant’s costs in the proceedings be awarded in its favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the applicant’s costs in the proceedings be awarded in its favour.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Colomer Italy SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’ for goods in class 3

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Farmaca International SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark ‘ESTRO’ for ‘hair and cosmetic’ goods

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Articles 8(4), 7(1) and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/13

---

Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T-715/13)

2014/C 78/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2013 given in Case R 2338/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2013 given in Case R 2338/2012-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Castello’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 et 31 — Community trade mark application No 6 819 941

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: Community trade mark registration No 4 199 907 for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 39 and Spanish trade marks for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 39

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75, 79 and 8(1)(b) CTMR.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/14

---

Action brought on 14 January 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Representation of a seated figure)

(Case T-28/14)

2014/C 78/28

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (Tarifa, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul OHIM’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul OHIM’s decision;

| — | 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: Registered Community design No 426 895-002 for ‘T-shirts (Ornamentation for); Caps (Ornamentation for); Stickers (Ornamentation for); Printed matter, including advertising materials (Ornamentation for)’.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

Mark or design of the applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Community figurative mark No 1 312 651, for goods in Classes 25, 28, and 32 of the Nice Classification.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld and design declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Regulation No 6/2002

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/14

---

Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)

(Case T-46/14)

2014/C 78/29

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions GmbH (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: Wattline GmbH (Ruderting, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Alter the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2013 in Case R 1668/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the application for the Community trade mark is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2013 in Case R 1668/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the application for the Community trade mark is rejected;

| — | 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

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wattline GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WATTLINE’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 908 345

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word and figurative mark and the Community word and figurative mark ‘Watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/15

---

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Pfizer v Commission and EMA

(Case T-48/14)

2014/C 78/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon and M. Schaefer, Barristers, I. Dodds-Smith, C. Stothers and J. Mulryne, Solicitors)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission and of EMA contained in the letters of 11 November 2013 and of 15 November 2013 not to issue the compliance statement; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission and of EMA contained in the letters of 11 November 2013 and of 15 November 2013 not to issue the compliance statement; and

| — | Order the Commission and EMA to bear the costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission and EMA to bear the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that in contending that the compliance statement, for the applicant’s marketing authorisation of medicinal product Vfend, cannot be issued until the studies set out in the paediatric investigation plan (‘PIP’) have been assessed for the purposes of the new prophylaxis indication, the EMA has misinterpreted Article 28(3) of the Paediatric Regulation (1).

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ L 378, p.1).

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/15

---

Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL)

(Case T-50/14)

2014/C 78/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 November 2013 in Case R 1254/2013-4 in respect of the goods in Class 6 (building material made of metal, ironmongery, small items of metal hardware, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods made of metal); the goods in Class 19 (building material, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods not made of metal) and the goods in Class 20 (fastening material, assembly material, screws); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 November 2013 in Case R 1254/2013-4 in respect of the goods in Class 6 (building material made of metal, ironmongery, small items of metal hardware, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods made of metal); the goods in Class 19 (building material, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods not made of metal) and the goods in Class 20 (fastening material, assembly material, screws);

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TURBO DRILL’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 8, 19 and 20 — Community trade mark application No 11 695 145

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/16

---

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)

(Case T-55/14)

2014/C 78/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen eG (Vaihingen an der Enz, Germany) (represented by H. Steffan, 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 Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1 relating to Community trade mark application No 11 134 947; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1 relating to Community trade mark application No 11 134 947;

| — | as regards the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1, oblige the defendant to register the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1, oblige the defendant to register the mark applied for;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Lembergerland’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 11 134 947

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/16

---

Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Iran Insurance v Council

(Case T-63/14)

2014/C 78/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iran Insurance Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul paragraph 2 of the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 2 of the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18);

| — | Annul paragraph 2 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 2 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

| — | Declare Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1), as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP (2) of 23 January 2012, and Articles 23 (2) (d) and 46(2) of Regulation 267/2012 (3) of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1), as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP (2) of 23 January 2012, and Articles 23 (2) (d) and 46(2) of Regulation 267/2012 (3) of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Iran Insurance Company is unsubstantiated. The applicant clearly denied it provided financial support to the Government of Iran. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided nuclear support to Iran. Hence the requirements of Article 20.1(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1(11) of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Iran Insurance Company is unsubstantiated. The applicant clearly denied it provided financial support to the Government of Iran. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided nuclear support to Iran. Hence the requirements of Article 20.1(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1(11) of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by sanctioning Iran Insurance Company on the sole grounds it is a Government-owned company, the Council discriminated against the applicant as compared with other publicly-owned companies of Iran which are not sanctioned. While doing so, the Council violated the principles of equality, non-discrimination and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by sanctioning Iran Insurance Company on the sole grounds it is a Government-owned company, the Council discriminated against the applicant as compared with other publicly-owned companies of Iran which are not sanctioned. While doing so, the Council violated the principles of equality, non-discrimination and sound administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council did not adequately state the reasons of its decision to maintain the applicant in the list of sanctioned entities. While referring to the ‘impact of the measures in the context of the Union’s policy objectives’, it failed to specify the type of impact it refers to and how the measures would address such impact. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council did not adequately state the reasons of its decision to maintain the applicant in the list of sanctioned entities. While referring to the ‘impact of the measures in the context of the Union’s policy objectives’, it failed to specify the type of impact it refers to and how the measures would address such impact.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by maintaining the applicant on the list of sanctioned companies, the Council has misused its powers. The Council refused in practice to comply with the judgment of the General Court in case T-12/11. The Council undermined the institutional construct of the European Union and the applicant’s right to obtain justice and see it applied. The Council also evaded its own responsibilities and obligations under Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, as they were clearly specified to the Council by the Court in its above-mentioned judgment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by maintaining the applicant on the list of sanctioned companies, the Council has misused its powers. The Council refused in practice to comply with the judgment of the General Court in case T-12/11. The Council undermined the institutional construct of the European Union and the applicant’s right to obtain justice and see it applied. The Council also evaded its own responsibilities and obligations under Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, as they were clearly specified to the Council by the Court in its above-mentioned judgment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of legitimate expectations by not complying with a judgment of the Court, in which the Council was a party against the applicant and which the Council lost, by failing to even comply with the rationale and motivations of the judgment, by making a factual mistake regarding the applicant’s business and its presumed role towards the Government of Iran, by failing to carry out the slightest investigation into the applicant’s actual role and business in Iran whereas this was indicated by the Court as an important aspect of the EU’s sanctions’ regime against Iran, and by maintaining the sanctions beyond 20 January 2014, date at which the EU agreed on revenue generating activities for Iran, since Iran is no longer considered to engage in nuclear proliferation activities. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of legitimate expectations by not complying with a judgment of the Court, in which the Council was a party against the applicant and which the Council lost, by failing to even comply with the rationale and motivations of the judgment, by making a factual mistake regarding the applicant’s business and its presumed role towards the Government of Iran, by failing to carry out the slightest investigation into the applicant’s actual role and business in Iran whereas this was indicated by the Court as an important aspect of the EU’s sanctions’ regime against Iran, and by maintaining the sanctions beyond 20 January 2014, date at which the EU agreed on revenue generating activities for Iran, since Iran is no longer considered to engage in nuclear proliferation activities.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of proportionality.

---

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

(2)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22)

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

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/17

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Gap granen & producten v Commission

(Case T-437/10) (1)

2014/C 78/34

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN)

(Case T-658/11) (1)

2014/C 78/35

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)

(Case T-659/11) (1)

2014/C 78/36

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-389/12) (1)

2014/C 78/37

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Xeda International and Others v Commission

(Case T-415/12) (1)

2014/C 78/38

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/19

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Van Asbroeck v Parliament

(Case F-102/12) (1)

(Civil service - Classification in grade - Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category following the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations - Compensatory allowance - Decision to re-grade officials benefitting from that compensatory allowance)

2014/C 78/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Van Asbroeck (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and S. Seyr, acting as Agents, then by V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision to re-grade the applicant in grade AST 5, step 3, with retroactive effect.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Van Asbroeck. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Van Asbroeck.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 41.

---

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/19

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission

(Case F-114/12) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Nationals of the State in whose territory their place of employment is situated - Habitual residence)

2014/C 78/40

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Jelenkowska-Luca (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision not to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Jelenkowska-Luca to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Jelenkowska-Luca to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.13, p. 71.

---