# Official Journal C 16/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 16 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5819 January 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 16

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5819 January 2015

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| 2015/C 016/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

2015/C 016/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 016/02 | Case C-580/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 — Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for flat glass in the European Economic Area (EEA) — Price-fixing — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Inclusion of an undertaking’s internal sales — Reasonable time — Admissibility of documents produced with a view to the General Court hearing) | 2 |
| 2015/C 016/03 | Case C-140/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2004/39/EC — Article 54 — Obligation of professional secrecy incumbent on national financial supervisory authorities — Information concerning a fraudulent investment firm in compulsory liquidation) | 3 |
| 2015/C 016/04 | Case C-201/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Concept of parody — Autonomous concept of EU law) | 3 |
| 2015/C 016/05 | Case C-333/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig — Germany) — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (Free movement of persons — Citizenship of the Union — Equal treatment — Economically inactive nationals of a Member State residing in the territory of another Member State — Exclusion of those persons from special non-contributory cash benefits under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Articles 7(1)(b) and 24 — Condition requiring sufficient resources) | 4 |
| 2015/C 016/06 | Case C-402/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou — Cyprus) — Cypra Ltd v Kypriaki Dimokratia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Animal health — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Products of animal origin intended for human consumption — Official controls — Appointment of an official veterinarian — Slaughter of animals) | 5 |
| 2015/C 016/07 | Case C-416/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo — Spain) — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1) — Discrimination on grounds of age — National provision — Condition of recruitment of local police officers — Fixing of a maximum age of 30 — Justification) | 6 |
| 2015/C 016/08 | Case C-443/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol — Austria) — Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws on animal health — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Annex I — Microbiological criteria applicable to foodstuffs — Salmonella in fresh poultry meat — Failure to comply with microbiological criteria found at the distribution stage — National legislation imposing a penalty on a food business operator active only at the stage of retail sale — Compatibility with EU law — Effective, dissuasive and proportionate nature of the penalty) | 6 |
| 2015/C 016/09 | Case C-447/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Riccardo Nencini v European Parliament (Appeals — Member of the European Parliament — Allowances to cover costs incurred in the exercise of parliamentary duties — Recovery of undue payments — Recovery — Limitation — Reasonable time) | 7 |
| 2015/C 016/10 | Case C-530/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Discrimination based on age — National legislation under which inclusion of periods of study and service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement — Justification — Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued — Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement) | 8 |
| 2015/C 016/11 | Case C-656/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — L v M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 12(3) — Child whose parents are not married — Prorogation of jurisdiction — No other related proceedings pending — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by a party who has made an application to that court) | 8 |
| 2015/C 016/12 | Case C-112/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — National tax legislation — Attribution of gains to participators in close companies — Different treatment of resident and non-resident companies — Wholly artificial constructions — Proportionality) | 9 |
| 2015/C 016/13 | Case C-275/13: Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Elcogás SA v Administración del Estado, Iberdrola SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of State intervention or through State resources — Companies which own electricity generating plants — Extraordinary financing) | 10 |
| 2015/C 016/14 | Case C-348/13: Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Internet links giving access to protected works — Use of the framing technique) | 10 |
| 2015/C 016/15 | Case C-466/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Repsol YPF SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative sign representing the letter R) | 11 |
| 2015/C 016/16 | Case C-665/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 11 |
| 2015/C 016/17 | Case C-669/13 P: Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC — Refusal of registration) | 12 |
| 2015/C 016/18 | Case C-139/14: Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg) — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Tariff heading 2202 10 00 — Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured — Tariff heading 2202 9010 11 — Fruit juice or vegetable juice diluted with water or aerated) | 12 |
| 2015/C 016/19 | Case C-246/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a reduction in pension entitlements — Purely internal situation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 13 |
| 2015/C 016/20 | Case C-254/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici, Croatia) — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Price to the consumer — Whether fixed costs can be invoiced — Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 14 |
| 2015/C 016/21 | Case C-356/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility) | 14 |
| 2015/C 016/22 | Case C-366/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling) | 15 |
| 2015/C 016/23 | Case C-394/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Article 99 — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Long delay to a flight — Passengers’ right to compensation — Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation — Notion of extraordinary circumstances — Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight) | 15 |
| 2015/C 016/24 | Case C-243/14: Request submitted by Philippe Adam Krikorian (France) on 13 May 2014 | 16 |
| 2015/C 016/25 | Case C-401/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge | 16 |
| 2015/C 016/26 | Case C-469/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas | 16 |
| 2015/C 016/27 | Case C-482/14: Action brought on 30 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 17 |
| 2015/C 016/28 | Case C-486/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski | 18 |
| 2015/C 016/29 | Case C-498/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — RG (*1) 
  v SF (*1) | 19 |
| 2015/C 016/30 | Case C-503/14: Action brought on 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 20 |
| 2015/C 016/31 | Case C-519/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-113/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v European Commission | 21 |
| 2015/C 016/32 | Case C-405/13: Order of the President of the Court of 17 octobre 2014 — European Commission v Romania, intervening parties: Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of the Netherlands | 22 |
| 2015/C 016/33 | Case C-483/13: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v Steluta Grigore | 23 |
| 2015/C 016/34 | Case C-685/13: Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron | 23 |
| 2015/C 016/35 | Case C-54/14: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid — Spain) — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego, María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA | 23 |
| 2015/C 016/36 | Case C-188/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid — Spain) — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco de Santander SA | 23 |
| 2015/C 016/37 | Case C-206/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia | 24 |
| 2015/C 016/38 | Case C-208/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra, Sección Tercera — Spain) — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia SA | 24 |
| 2015/C 016/39 | Case C-380/14: Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 24 |
| 2015/C 016/40 | Case C-403/14: Order of the President of the Court of 4 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Vekos Trade AD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite | 24 |
| 2015/C 016/41 | Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management — Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Series or family of trade marks — Likelihood of association — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure) | 25 |
| 2015/C 016/42 | Case T-450/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces that have a grid structure) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Absolute grounds for refusal — First sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2015/C 016/43 | Case T-517/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Effect on trade between Member States — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary — Duty to state reasons) | 26 |
| 2015/C 016/44 | Case T-521/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing agreement — 2002 Leniency Notice — Immunity from fines — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons) | 27 |
| 2015/C 016/45 | Case T-153/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZENATO RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2015/C 016/46 | Case T-154/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Ripassa ZENATO — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2015/C 016/47 | Case T-173/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Carrera — Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings) | 29 |
| 2015/C 016/48 | Case T-384/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Claim for damages) | 30 |
| 2015/C 016/49 | Case T-512/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Irish air travel tax — Exemption for transit and transfer passengers — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to open the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of parties concerned) | 31 |
| 2015/C 016/50 | Case T-272/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine — Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons) | 31 |
| 2015/C 016/51 | Case T-374/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Figurative mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 32 |
| 2015/C 016/52 | Case T-375/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Word mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2015/C 016/53 | Case T-394/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Alfastar Benelux SA v Council (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the personal computers, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of contract to another tenderer — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Action for damages) | 33 |
| 2015/C 016/54 | Case T-556/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Royalton Overseas v OHIM — S.C. Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAISERHOFF — Earlier national word mark KAISERHOFF — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rules 20 and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 34 |
| 2015/C 016/55 | Case T-240/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Alifoods — Earlier international and Community word marks ALDI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95) | 35 |
| 2015/C 016/56 | Case T-402/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Appropriateness — Nececssity — Absence of arbitrariness — Statement of reasons) | 35 |
| 2015/C 016/57 | Case T-556/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 36 |
| 2015/C 016/58 | Case T-17/13: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contract concerning the Pocemon project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Reminder letter — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 37 |
| 2015/C 016/59 | Case T-64/13: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 37 |
| 2015/C 016/60 | Case T-20/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Lack of individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causation — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 38 |
| 2015/C 016/61 | Case T-22/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for traveling time — No individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law) | 39 |
| 2015/C 016/62 | Case T-23/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Substantial reduction in the number of days of annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country — Lack of individual concern — Manifest inadmissibility) | 39 |
| 2015/C 016/63 | Case T-27/14: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Article 22 of Directive 2003/55 EC — Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to annul its decision relating to the grant of a derogation — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility) | 40 |
| 2015/C 016/64 | Case T-731/14: Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council | 41 |
| 2015/C 016/65 | Case T-732/14: Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council | 41 |
| 2015/C 016/66 | Case T-733/14: Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament | 42 |
| 2015/C 016/67 | Case T-734/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council | 43 |
| 2015/C 016/68 | Case T-749/14: Action brought on 4 November 2014 — Chung-Yuan Chang v OHIM — BSH (AROMA) | 44 |
| 2015/C 016/69 | Case T-772/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Musso v Parliament | 45 |
| 2015/C 016/70 | Case T-647/13: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM) | 47 |
| 2015/C 016/71 | Case F-59/09 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Annual appraisal — Internal rules — Appeals procedure — Right to be heard — Infringement by the Appeals Committee — Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages) | 48 |
| 2015/C 016/72 | Case F-156/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Action for damages — Wrongful conduct — Harassment by line-managers — Occupational disease — Damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations not compensating in full for the harm suffered — Application for supplementary damages) | 48 |
| 2015/C 016/73 | Case F-42/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2014 — EH v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Rule against cumulation of national allowances and allowances under the Staff Regulations — Official’s spouse in receipt of national family allowances — No declaration by the official to his administration of a change in his personal circumstances — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Demotion in step — Proportionality — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances — Failure by the administration to exercise due care and attention) | 49 |
| 2015/C 016/74 | Case F-133/14: Action brought on 17 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission | 50 |
| 2015/C 016/75 | Case F-135/14: Action brought on 25th November 2014 — ZZ v EMA | 50 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 016/02

Case C-580/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 — Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for flat glass in the European Economic Area (EEA) — Price-fixing — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Inclusion of an undertaking’s internal sales — Reasonable time — Admissibility of documents produced with a view to the General Court hearing)

2

2015/C 016/03

Case C-140/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2004/39/EC — Article 54 — Obligation of professional secrecy incumbent on national financial supervisory authorities — Information concerning a fraudulent investment firm in compulsory liquidation)

3

2015/C 016/04

Case C-201/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Concept of parody — Autonomous concept of EU law)

3

2015/C 016/05

Case C-333/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig — Germany) — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (Free movement of persons — Citizenship of the Union — Equal treatment — Economically inactive nationals of a Member State residing in the territory of another Member State — Exclusion of those persons from special non-contributory cash benefits under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Articles 7(1)(b) and 24 — Condition requiring sufficient resources)

4

2015/C 016/06

Case C-402/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou — Cyprus) — Cypra Ltd v Kypriaki Dimokratia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Animal health — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Products of animal origin intended for human consumption — Official controls — Appointment of an official veterinarian — Slaughter of animals)

5

2015/C 016/07

Case C-416/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo — Spain) — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1) — Discrimination on grounds of age — National provision — Condition of recruitment of local police officers — Fixing of a maximum age of 30 — Justification)

6

2015/C 016/08

Case C-443/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol — Austria) — Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws on animal health — Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 — Annex I — Microbiological criteria applicable to foodstuffs — Salmonella in fresh poultry meat — Failure to comply with microbiological criteria found at the distribution stage — National legislation imposing a penalty on a food business operator active only at the stage of retail sale — Compatibility with EU law — Effective, dissuasive and proportionate nature of the penalty)

6

2015/C 016/09

Case C-447/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Riccardo Nencini v European Parliament (Appeals — Member of the European Parliament — Allowances to cover costs incurred in the exercise of parliamentary duties — Recovery of undue payments — Recovery — Limitation — Reasonable time)

7

2015/C 016/10

Case C-530/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Discrimination based on age — National legislation under which inclusion of periods of study and service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement — Justification — Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued — Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement)

8

2015/C 016/11

Case C-656/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — L v M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 12(3) — Child whose parents are not married — Prorogation of jurisdiction — No other related proceedings pending — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by a party who has made an application to that court)

8

2015/C 016/12

Case C-112/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — National tax legislation — Attribution of gains to participators in close companies — Different treatment of resident and non-resident companies — Wholly artificial constructions — Proportionality)

9

2015/C 016/13

Case C-275/13: Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Elcogás SA v Administración del Estado, Iberdrola SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of State intervention or through State resources — Companies which own electricity generating plants — Extraordinary financing)

10

2015/C 016/14

Case C-348/13: Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Internet links giving access to protected works — Use of the framing technique)

10

2015/C 016/15

Case C-466/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Repsol YPF SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative sign representing the letter R)

11

2015/C 016/16

Case C-665/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

11

2015/C 016/17

Case C-669/13 P: Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC — Refusal of registration)

12

2015/C 016/18

Case C-139/14: Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg) — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Tariff heading 2202 10 00 — Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured — Tariff heading 2202 9010 11 — Fruit juice or vegetable juice diluted with water or aerated)

12

2015/C 016/19

Case C-246/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a reduction in pension entitlements — Purely internal situation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

13

2015/C 016/20

Case C-254/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici, Croatia) — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Price to the consumer — Whether fixed costs can be invoiced — Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

14

2015/C 016/21

Case C-356/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

14

2015/C 016/22

Case C-366/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling)

15

2015/C 016/23

Case C-394/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Article 99 — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Long delay to a flight — Passengers’ right to compensation — Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation — Notion of extraordinary circumstances — Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight)

15

2015/C 016/24

Case C-243/14: Request submitted by Philippe Adam Krikorian (France) on 13 May 2014

16

2015/C 016/25

Case C-401/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge

16

2015/C 016/26

Case C-469/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

16

2015/C 016/27

Case C-482/14: Action brought on 30 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

17

2015/C 016/28

Case C-486/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski

18

2015/C 016/29

Case C-498/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — RG (*1) 
  v SF (*1)

*1

*1

19

2015/C 016/30

Case C-503/14: Action brought on 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

20

2015/C 016/31

Case C-519/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-113/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v European Commission

21

2015/C 016/32

Case C-405/13: Order of the President of the Court of 17 octobre 2014 — European Commission v Romania, intervening parties: Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of the Netherlands

22

2015/C 016/33

Case C-483/13: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v Steluta Grigore

23

2015/C 016/34

Case C-685/13: Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

23

2015/C 016/35

Case C-54/14: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid — Spain) — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego, María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

23

2015/C 016/36

Case C-188/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid — Spain) — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco de Santander SA

23

2015/C 016/37

Case C-206/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

24

2015/C 016/38

Case C-208/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra, Sección Tercera — Spain) — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia SA

24

2015/C 016/39

Case C-380/14: Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

24

2015/C 016/40

Case C-403/14: Order of the President of the Court of 4 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Vekos Trade AD v Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

24

2015/C 016/41

Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management — Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Series or family of trade marks — Likelihood of association — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

25

2015/C 016/42

Case T-450/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces that have a grid structure) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Cube with surfaces having a grid structure — Absolute grounds for refusal — First sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Absence of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

26

2015/C 016/43

Case T-517/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Effect on trade between Member States — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary — Duty to state reasons)

26

2015/C 016/44

Case T-521/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing agreement — 2002 Leniency Notice — Immunity from fines — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)

27

2015/C 016/45

Case T-153/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZENATO RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

28

2015/C 016/46

Case T-154/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Ripassa ZENATO — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

28

2015/C 016/47

Case T-173/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Carrera — Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)

29

2015/C 016/48

Case T-384/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Claim for damages)

30

2015/C 016/49

Case T-512/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Irish air travel tax — Exemption for transit and transfer passengers — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to open the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of parties concerned)

31

2015/C 016/50

Case T-272/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine — Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

31

2015/C 016/51

Case T-374/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Figurative mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

32

2015/C 016/52

Case T-375/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Word mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

33

2015/C 016/53

Case T-394/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Alfastar Benelux SA v Council (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the personal computers, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of contract to another tenderer — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Action for damages)

33

2015/C 016/54

Case T-556/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Royalton Overseas v OHIM — S.C. Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAISERHOFF — Earlier national word mark KAISERHOFF — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rules 20 and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

34

2015/C 016/55

Case T-240/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Alifoods — Earlier international and Community word marks ALDI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

35

2015/C 016/56

Case T-402/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Appropriateness — Nececssity — Absence of arbitrariness — Statement of reasons)

35

2015/C 016/57

Case T-556/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

36

2015/C 016/58

Case T-17/13: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contract concerning the Pocemon project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Reminder letter — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

37

2015/C 016/59

Case T-64/13: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

37

2015/C 016/60

Case T-20/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Lack of individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causation — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

38

2015/C 016/61

Case T-22/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for traveling time — No individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law)

39

2015/C 016/62

Case T-23/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Substantial reduction in the number of days of annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country — Lack of individual concern — Manifest inadmissibility)

39

2015/C 016/63

Case T-27/14: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Article 22 of Directive 2003/55 EC — Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to annul its decision relating to the grant of a derogation — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

40

2015/C 016/64

Case T-731/14: Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council

41

2015/C 016/65

Case T-732/14: Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council

41

2015/C 016/66

Case T-733/14: Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament

42

2015/C 016/67

Case T-734/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council

43

2015/C 016/68

Case T-749/14: Action brought on 4 November 2014 — Chung-Yuan Chang v OHIM — BSH (AROMA)

44

2015/C 016/69

Case T-772/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Musso v Parliament

45

2015/C 016/70

Case T-647/13: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM)

47

2015/C 016/71

Case F-59/09 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Annual appraisal — Internal rules — Appeals procedure — Right to be heard — Infringement by the Appeals Committee — Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages)

48

2015/C 016/72

Case F-156/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Action for damages — Wrongful conduct — Harassment by line-managers — Occupational disease — Damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations not compensating in full for the harm suffered — Application for supplementary damages)

48

2015/C 016/73

Case F-42/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2014 — EH v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Rule against cumulation of national allowances and allowances under the Staff Regulations — Official’s spouse in receipt of national family allowances — No declaration by the official to his administration of a change in his personal circumstances — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Demotion in step — Proportionality — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances — Failure by the administration to exercise due care and attention)

49

2015/C 016/74

Case F-133/14: Action brought on 17 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission

50

2015/C 016/75

Case F-135/14: Action brought on 25th November 2014 — ZZ v EMA

th

50

---

| | |
| --- | --- |

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/1

---

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

(2015/C 016/01)

Last publication

OJ C 7, 12.1.2015

Past publications

OJ C 462, 22.12.2014

OJ C 448, 15.12.2014

OJ C 439, 8.12.2014

OJ C 431, 1.12.2014

OJ C 421, 24.11.2014

OJ C 409, 17.11.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 — Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Commission

(Case C-580/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for flat glass in the European Economic Area (EEA) - Price-fixing - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Inclusion of an undertaking’s internal sales - Reasonable time - Admissibility of documents produced with a view to the General Court hearing)

(2015/C 016/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl (represented by: H.-G. Kamann and S. Völcker, Rechtsanwälte, instructed by C. O’Daly, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and R. Sauer, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494), in so far as it rejected the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination as regards the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl and ordered them to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494), in so far as it rejected the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination as regards the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl and ordered them to pay the costs;

| 2. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl at EUR 148 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl at EUR 148 000 000;

| 3. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl by reason of the infringement established in Article 1 of that decision at EUR 103 600 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl by reason of the infringement established in Article 1 of that decision at EUR 103 600 000;

| 4. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs in respect of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal, to pay one half of the costs incurred by Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl relating to those two sets of proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs in respect of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal, to pay one half of the costs incurred by Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl relating to those two sets of proceedings;

| 6. | Orders Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl to bear one half of their own costs relating to those proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl to bear one half of their own costs relating to those proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

(Case C-140/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2004/39/EC - Article 54 - Obligation of professional secrecy incumbent on national financial supervisory authorities - Information concerning a fraudulent investment firm in compulsory liquidation)

(2015/C 016/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Annett Altmann, Torsten Altmann, Hans Abel, Waltraud Apitzsch, Uwe Apitzsch, Simone Arnold, Barbara Assheuer, Ingeborg Aubele, Karl-Heinz Aubele

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

Intervening party:Frank Schmitt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 54(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, in administrative proceedings, a national supervisory authority may rely on the obligation to maintain professional secrecy against a person who, in a case not covered by criminal law and not in a civil or commercial proceeding, requests it to grant access to information concerning an investment firm which is in judicial liquidation, even where that firm’s main business model consisted in large scale fraud and wilful harming of investors’ interests and several executives of that firm have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others

(Case C-201/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Concept of ‘parody’ - Autonomous concept of EU law)

(2015/C 016/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW

Defendants: Helena Vandersteen, Christiane Vandersteen, Liliana Vandersteen, Isabelle Vandersteen, Rita Dupont, Amoras II CVOH, WPG Uitgevers België

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parody’ appearing in that provision is an autonomous concept of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘parody’ appearing in that provision is an autonomous concept of EU law.

| 2. | Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the essential characteristics of parody, are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The concept of ‘parody’, within the meaning of that provision, is not subject to the conditions that the parody should display an original character of its own, other than that of displaying noticeable differences with respect to the original parodied work; that it could reasonably be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work itself; that it should relate to the original work itself or mention the source of the parodied work.
  However, the application, in a particular case, of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests and rights of persons referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive, and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying on the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k).
  It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, on the assumption that the drawing at issue fulfils the essential requirements of parody, preserves that fair balance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the essential characteristics of parody, are, first, to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The concept of ‘parody’, within the meaning of that provision, is not subject to the conditions that the parody should display an original character of its own, other than that of displaying noticeable differences with respect to the original parodied work; that it could reasonably be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work itself; that it should relate to the original work itself or mention the source of the parodied work.

However, the application, in a particular case, of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the interests and rights of persons referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive, and, on the other, the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying on the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k).

It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29, on the assumption that the drawing at issue fulfils the essential requirements of parody, preserves that fair balance.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig — Germany) — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig

(Case C-333/13) (1)

(Free movement of persons - Citizenship of the Union - Equal treatment - Economically inactive nationals of a Member State residing in the territory of another Member State - Exclusion of those persons from special non-contributory cash benefits under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence for more than three months - Articles 7(1)(b) and 24 - Condition requiring sufficient resources)

(2015/C 016/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Leipzig

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano

Defendant: Jobcenter Leipzig

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ as referred to in Articles 3(3) and 70 of the regulation fall within the scope of Article 4 of the regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ as referred to in Articles 3(3) and 70 of the regulation fall within the scope of Article 4 of the regulation.

| 2) | Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) thereof, and Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, although those benefits are granted to nationals of the host Member State who are in the same situation, in so far as those nationals of other Member States do not have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) thereof, and Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, although those benefits are granted to nationals of the host Member State who are in the same situation, in so far as those nationals of other Member States do not have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State.

| 3) | The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the fourth question. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the fourth question.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou — Cyprus) — Cypra Ltd v Kypriaki Dimokratia

(Case C-402/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Animal health - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Products of animal origin intended for human consumption - Official controls - Appointment of an official veterinarian - Slaughter of animals)

(2015/C 016/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cypra Ltd

Defendant: Kypriaki Dimokratia

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted, in principle, as not precluding the competent authority determining the time at which the slaughter of animals takes place, with a view to the appointment of an official veterinarian for the purposes of supervising the slaughter, and refusing to provide such a veterinarian on the day and at the time determined by the slaughterer, unless it is objectively necessary for the slaughter to take place on a specific day, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo — Spain) — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

(Case C-416/13) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1) - Discrimination on grounds of age - National provision - Condition of recruitment of local police officers - Fixing of a maximum age of 30 - Justification)

(2015/C 016/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mario Vital Pérez

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets the maximum age for recruitment of local police officers at 30 years.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol — Austria) — Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

(Case C-443/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws on animal health - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Annex I - Microbiological criteria applicable to foodstuffs - Salmonella in fresh poultry meat - Failure to comply with microbiological criteria found at the distribution stage - National legislation imposing a penalty on a food business operator active only at the stage of retail sale - Compatibility with EU law - Effective, dissuasive and proportionate nature of the penalty)

(2015/C 016/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Reindl, representative of MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH, with liability

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Annex II E. 1 to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that fresh poultry meat from the animal populations listed in Annex I to that regulation, must satisfy the microbiological criterion mentioned in Annex I, Chapter I, Row l.28 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, at all the stages of distribution including the retail sale stage; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annex II E. 1 to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that fresh poultry meat from the animal populations listed in Annex I to that regulation, must satisfy the microbiological criterion mentioned in Annex I, Chapter I, Row l.28 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, at all the stages of distribution including the retail sale stage;

| 2. | EU law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety and Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a penalty on a food business operator which is active only at the distribution stage for placing foodstuff on the market, on account of the failure to comply with the microbiological criterion laid down in Annex I, Chapter I, Row 1.28 of Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011. It is for the national court to determine whether the penalty at issue in the main proceedings observes the principle of proportionality referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 178/2002. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety and Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a penalty on a food business operator which is active only at the distribution stage for placing foodstuff on the market, on account of the failure to comply with the microbiological criterion laid down in Annex I, Chapter I, Row 1.28 of Regulation No 2073/2005, as amended by Regulation No 1086/2011. It is for the national court to determine whether the penalty at issue in the main proceedings observes the principle of proportionality referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Riccardo Nencini v European Parliament

(Case C-447/13 P) (1)

(Appeals - Member of the European Parliament - Allowances to cover costs incurred in the exercise of parliamentary duties - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery - Limitation - Reasonable time)

(2015/C 016/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Riccardo Nencini (represented by: M. Chiti, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Nencini v Parliament (T-431/10 and T-560/10, EU:T:2013:290) in so far as concerns Case T-560/10; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Nencini v Parliament (T-431/10 and T-560/10, EU:T:2013:290) in so far as concerns Case T-560/10;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 7 October 2010 regarding the recovery of certain expenses received by Mr Riccardo Nencini, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses and the debit note of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 315653 of 13 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 7 October 2010 regarding the recovery of certain expenses received by Mr Riccardo Nencini, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses and the debit note of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 315653 of 13 October 2010;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Riccardo Nencini in the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Riccardo Nencini in the present appeal;

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-560/10; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-560/10;

| 5. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Schmitzer v Bundesministerin für Inneres

(Case C-530/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Discrimination based on age - National legislation under which inclusion of periods of study and service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement)

(2015/C 016/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leopold Schmitzer

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with a view to ending age-based discrimination, takes into account periods of training and service prior to the age of 18 but which, at the same time, introduces — only for civil servants who suffered that discrimination — a three-year extension of the period required in order to progress from the first to the second incremental step in each job category and each salary group. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with a view to ending age-based discrimination, takes into account periods of training and service prior to the age of 18 but which, at the same time, introduces — only for civil servants who suffered that discrimination — a three-year extension of the period required in order to progress from the first to the second incremental step in each job category and each salary group.

| 2. | Articles 9 and 16 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a civil servant who has suffered age-based discrimination — resulting from the method by which the reference date taken into account for the calculation of his advancement was fixed — must be able to rely on Article 2 of that directive in order to challenge the discriminatory effects of the extension of the period for advancement, even though, at his request, that reference date has been revised. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 9 and 16 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a civil servant who has suffered age-based discrimination — resulting from the method by which the reference date taken into account for the calculation of his advancement was fixed — must be able to rely on Article 2 of that directive in order to challenge the discriminatory effects of the extension of the period for advancement, even though, at his request, that reference date has been revised.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — L v M

(Case C-656/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 12(3) - Child whose parents are not married - Prorogation of jurisdiction - No other related proceedings pending - Acceptance of jurisdiction - Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by a party who has made an application to that court)

(2015/C 016/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: M

Interveners: R, K

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen.

| 2. | Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-112/14) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - National tax legislation - Attribution of gains to participators in close companies - Different treatment of resident and non-resident companies - Wholly artificial constructions - Proportionality)

(2015/C 016/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning the attribution of gains to participators in non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning the attribution of gains to participators in non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

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

2)

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Elcogás SA v Administración del Estado, Iberdrola SA

(Case C-275/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of State intervention or through State resources - Companies which own electricity generating plants - Extraordinary financing)

(2015/C 016/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elcogás SA

Defendant: Administracion del Estado, Iberdrola SA

Operative part of the order

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the sums allocated to a private undertaking producing electricity which are financed by all end users of electricity in the national territory and which are distributed to undertakings in the electricity sector by a public body in accordance with predetermined legal criteria constitute aid granted by a Member State or through State resources.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

(Case C-348/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Internet links giving access to protected works - Use of the ‘framing’ technique)

(2015/C 016/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BestWater International GmbH

Defendant: Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

Operative part of the order

The mere fact that a protected work, freely available on an internet site, is inserted into another internet site by means of a link using the ‘framing’ technique, such as that used in the case in the main proceedings, cannot classified as ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society since the work at issue is not transmitted to a new public or communicated a specific technical method different from that of the original communication.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/11

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Repsol YPF SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-466/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative sign representing the letter ‘R’)

(2015/C 016/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Repsol YPF SA (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Repsol YPF SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Repsol YPF SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/11

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Case C-665/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees - No implementation of EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2015/C 016/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

Defendant: Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal), by order of 28 October 2013 (Case C-665/13).

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/12

---

Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd

(Case C-669/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic - Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC - Refusal of registration)

(2015/C 016/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mundipharma GmbH (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for the Harminisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (represented by: N. Nentwig, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mundipharma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mundipharma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/12

---

Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg) — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

(Case C-139/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Tariff heading 2202 10 00 - Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured - Tariff heading 2202 9010 11 - Fruit juice or vegetable juice diluted with water or aerated)

(2015/C 016/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mineralquelle Zurzach AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

Re:

The Combined Nomenclature contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 must be interpreted as meaning that a drink, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of inter alia water, sugar, concentrated orange, lemon, grape, pineapple, mandarin, nectarine and passion fruit juices, apricot and guava pulp, acidifier, a vitamin mix, natural and artificial flavouring, and which have a fruit juice content of 12 % comes under tariff subheading 2202 10 00 of that nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/13

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

(Case C-246/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a reduction in pension entitlements - Purely internal situation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2015/C 016/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy), by decision of 28 April 2014 (Case C-246/14).

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/14

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici, Croatia) — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika

(Case C-254/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community action in the field of water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Price to the consumer - Whether fixed costs can be invoiced - Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2015/C 016/20)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: Đuro Vladika

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the (Croatia).

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/14

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter

(Case C-356/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest környéki közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 16 June 2014, in Case C-356/14, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/15

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság — Hungary) — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár kft

(Case C-366/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility - Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling)

(2015/C 016/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Herrenknecht AG

Defendant: Hév-Sugár kft

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 11 July 2014 (Case C-366/14), is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/15

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-394/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Article 99 - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Long delay to a flight - Passengers’ right to compensation - Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight)

(2015/C 016/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, as in in the case before the referring court, an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exempting the air carrier from its obligation to pay the passengers compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request submitted by Philippe Adam Krikorian (France) on 13 May 2014

(Case C-243/14)

(2015/C 016/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties to the main proceedings

Grégoire Krikorian and Others

Request concerning, first, the validity of Article 1(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (OJ 2008 L 328, p. 55), and, secondly, the interpretation of that Council Framework Decision as well as Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and, finally, Articles 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2014 — Bernard Leloup v État belge

(Case C-401/14)

(2015/C 016/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernard Leloup

Defendant: État belge

By order of 11 November 2014, the Court ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-469/14)

(2015/C 016/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Masterrind GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the provision contained in point 1.4 of Chapter V of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (1), to the effect that, after 14 hours of travel, animals are to be given a rest period of at least one hour sufficient for them in particular to be given liquid and if necessary fed, after which they may be transported for a further 14 hours, to be interpreted as meaning that the periods of transport may also be interrupted by a rest period of more than one hour or by several rest periods at least one of which lasts for one hour? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the provision contained in point 1.4 of Chapter V of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (1), to the effect that, after 14 hours of travel, animals are to be given a rest period of at least one hour sufficient for them in particular to be given liquid and if necessary fed, after which they may be transported for a further 14 hours, to be interpreted as meaning that the periods of transport may also be interrupted by a rest period of more than one hour or by several rest periods at least one of which lasts for one hour?

| 2. | Is the paying agency of the individual Member State bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point in accordance with Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (2), with the result that the lawfulness of a refusal to make the entry is reviewable only by the authority accountable for the actions of the border veterinarian, or is the entry made by the official veterinarian nothing more than a mere procedural act by the authority which may be contested only in tandem with the appeals that lie against the paying agency’s substantive decisions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the paying agency of the individual Member State bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point in accordance with Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (2), with the result that the lawfulness of a refusal to make the entry is reviewable only by the authority accountable for the actions of the border veterinarian, or is the entry made by the official veterinarian nothing more than a mere procedural act by the authority which may be contested only in tandem with the appeals that lie against the paying agency’s substantive decisions?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/17

---

Action brought on 30 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-482/14)

(2015/C 016/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, J. Hottiaux and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should decide as follows:

| 1. | By allowing public funds paid for the management of railway infrastructure to be transferred to transport services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) (Article 6(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By allowing public funds paid for the management of railway infrastructure to be transferred to transport services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) (Article 6(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC).

| 2. | By failing to ensure that compliance with the prohibition on transferring public funds for the management of railway infrastructure to transport services can be monitored by the type of accounting system, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 6(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC). |
| --- | --- |

2.

By failing to ensure that compliance with the prohibition on transferring public funds for the management of railway infrastructure to transport services can be monitored by the type of accounting system, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 6(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC).

| 3. | By failing to ensure that infrastructure charges can be used only to fund the infrastructure manager’s business, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 7(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC). |
| --- | --- |

3.

By failing to ensure that infrastructure charges can be used only to fund the infrastructure manager’s business, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 7(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC).

| 4. | By failing to ensure that public funds paid for the provision of public passenger transport services are shown separately in the relevant accounts, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 9(4) of Directive 91/440/EEC) and under Article 6(1) in conjunction with point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2). |
| --- | --- |

4.

By failing to ensure that public funds paid for the provision of public passenger transport services are shown separately in the relevant accounts, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 9(4) of Directive 91/440/EEC) and under Article 6(1) in conjunction with point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2).

| 5. | The Federal Republic of Germany shall pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Federal Republic of Germany shall pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

Germany allows the Deutsche Bahn group, by means of profit transfer agreements, to use railway infrastructure managers’ revenues in the form of infrastructure charges and public funds for purposes other than the management of infrastructure. Those funds could, in particular, be used for the purposes of transport services. That is contrary to Articles 6(1) and 31(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU.

In addition, the infrastructure managers’ accounting system does not allow the prohibition on transferring public funds to transport services to be monitored. Germany allows that, which is contrary to Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU.

Lastly, Germany does not ensure that public funds paid for the provision of public passenger transport services are shown separately in the relevant accounts. That is contrary to Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU and to Article 6(1) in conjunction with point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area, OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski

(Case C-486/14)

(2015/C 016/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, Hamburg)

Parties to the main proceedings

Piotr Kossowski

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Principal Public Prosecutor’s Office), Hamburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the reservations entered at the time of ratification by the contracting parties to the Schengen Convention (1) pursuant to Article 55(1)(a) thereof — specifically, the reservation entered by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to (a) when depositing its instrument of ratification, that it is not bound by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention, ‘if the crime in respect of which the foreign judgment has been made was committed wholly or partly on its sovereign territory’ — continue in force following the integration of the Schengen acquis into the legal framework of the European Union by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam dated 2 October 1997, as preserved by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon; are these exceptions proportionate limitations on Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the reservations entered at the time of ratification by the contracting parties to the Schengen Convention (1) pursuant to Article 55(1)(a) thereof — specifically, the reservation entered by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to (a) when depositing its instrument of ratification, that it is not bound by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention, ‘if the crime in respect of which the foreign judgment has been made was committed wholly or partly on its sovereign territory’ — continue in force following the integration of the Schengen acquis into the legal framework of the European Union by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam dated 2 October 1997, as preserved by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon; are these exceptions proportionate limitations on Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2)?

| 2. | If these questions are answered in the negative:
  Are the prohibitions on double punishment and double prosecution laid down by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as prohibiting prosecution of an accused person in one Member State — in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany — where his prosecution in another Member State — in the present case, the Republic of Poland — by the Public Prosecutor has been discontinued, without any obligations imposed by way of penalty having been performed and without any detailed investigations, for factual reasons in the absence of adequate grounds for suspecting the accused of the crime, and can be re-opened only if significant circumstances previously unknown come to light, where such new circumstances have not in fact emerged? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If these questions are answered in the negative:

Are the prohibitions on double punishment and double prosecution laid down by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as prohibiting prosecution of an accused person in one Member State — in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany — where his prosecution in another Member State — in the present case, the Republic of Poland — by the Public Prosecutor has been discontinued, without any obligations imposed by way of penalty having been performed and without any detailed investigations, for factual reasons in the absence of adequate grounds for suspecting the accused of the crime, and can be re-opened only if significant circumstances previously unknown come to light, where such new circumstances have not in fact emerged?

---

(1)  The Schengen acquis — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19).

(2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 November 2014 — RG (*1) v SF (*1)

(Case C-498/14)

(2015/C 016/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RG (*1)

Defendant: SF (*1)

Question referred

Are the provisions in Article 11(7) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) (‘the Brussels IIa Regulation’) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from:

| — | giving preference to the specialisation of courts in situations of parental child abduction with respect to the procedure provided for in those [provisions] even where a court or tribunal has already been seised of proceedings concerning the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child? |
| --- | --- |

—

giving preference to the specialisation of courts in situations of parental child abduction with respect to the procedure provided for in those [provisions] even where a court or tribunal has already been seised of proceedings concerning the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child?

| — | removing, from the court seised of proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child, jurisdiction to give judgment on the custody of the child, even though that court has jurisdiction, under international and national law, to give judgment on questions of parental responsibility in relation to the child? |
| --- | --- |

—

removing, from the court seised of proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility in relation to the child, jurisdiction to give judgment on the custody of the child, even though that court has jurisdiction, under international and national law, to give judgment on questions of parental responsibility in relation to the child?

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ 2000 L 338, p. 1.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/20

---

Action brought on 11 November 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-503/14)

(2015/C 016/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement in adopting and maintaining in force legislation, in the form of Articles 10 and 38 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares (Law on the income tax of natural persons) (‘the CIRS’), pursuant to which a taxable person who (i) exchanges shares and transfers his place of residence abroad or (ii) transfers assets and liabilities relating to an activity carried out on an individual basis in return for shares in a non-resident company, must, in the former case, include, in relation to the transactions in question, any income not taxed in the last fiscal year in which the taxable person was still regarded as a resident taxpayer, whereas, in the latter case, he does not benefit from a deferment of tax resulting from the transaction in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement in adopting and maintaining in force legislation, in the form of Articles 10 and 38 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas singulares (Law on the income tax of natural persons) (‘the CIRS’), pursuant to which a taxable person who (i) exchanges shares and transfers his place of residence abroad or (ii) transfers assets and liabilities relating to an activity carried out on an individual basis in return for shares in a non-resident company, must, in the former case, include, in relation to the transactions in question, any income not taxed in the last fiscal year in which the taxable person was still regarded as a resident taxpayer, whereas, in the latter case, he does not benefit from a deferment of tax resulting from the transaction in question;

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

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law:

| 1. | On the one hand, pursuant to Article 10(9)(a) of the CIRS, if the shareholder is no longer resident in Portugal, capital gains resulting from a share exchange will form part of the taxable income of the calendar year in which the change of place of residence occurred. Under that same article, the value of the capital gains corresponds to the difference between the actual value of the shares received and the value of the older shares at the time of their purchase. By contrast, if the shareholder is resident in Portugal, the value of the shares received is the same as that of those transferred, without prejudice to the taxation of any monetary sums paid for the shares which were transferred. That is to say, where a taxable person remains resident in Portugal a share exchange gives rise to the immediate taxation of the capital gains generated only and in so far as an additional monetary payment is made. If there is no such payment, the capital gains tax will be levied only if and when the shares received have been definitively divested. Pursuant to Article 10(10) of the CIRS, the same tax regime is applicable to the allocation of shares in the case of mergers or the division of companies, to which Article 74 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas colectivas (Law on corporate taxation) applies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the one hand, pursuant to Article 10(9)(a) of the CIRS, if the shareholder is no longer resident in Portugal, capital gains resulting from a share exchange will form part of the taxable income of the calendar year in which the change of place of residence occurred. Under that same article, the value of the capital gains corresponds to the difference between the actual value of the shares received and the value of the older shares at the time of their purchase. By contrast, if the shareholder is resident in Portugal, the value of the shares received is the same as that of those transferred, without prejudice to the taxation of any monetary sums paid for the shares which were transferred. That is to say, where a taxable person remains resident in Portugal a share exchange gives rise to the immediate taxation of the capital gains generated only and in so far as an additional monetary payment is made. If there is no such payment, the capital gains tax will be levied only if and when the shares received have been definitively divested. Pursuant to Article 10(10) of the CIRS, the same tax regime is applicable to the allocation of shares in the case of mergers or the division of companies, to which Article 74 of the Código do imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas colectivas (Law on corporate taxation) applies.

| 2. | On the other hand, in accordance with Article 38(1)(a) of the CIRS, the transfer to an undertaking of assets and liabilities related to the exercise of an economic or professional activity by a natural person in exchange for shares is tax exempt at the time of transfer if, among other conditions, the legal person to which the assets and liabilities are transferred has its seat or registered office in Portugal. In that case, taxation occurs only when and if the legal person which received such assets and liabilities has divested itself of them. However, such a tax deferment does not apply if the legal person to which the assets and liabilities were transferred has its seat or registered office outside of Portugal. In that case, capital gains tax is immediately applicable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the other hand, in accordance with Article 38(1)(a) of the CIRS, the transfer to an undertaking of assets and liabilities related to the exercise of an economic or professional activity by a natural person in exchange for shares is tax exempt at the time of transfer if, among other conditions, the legal person to which the assets and liabilities are transferred has its seat or registered office in Portugal. In that case, taxation occurs only when and if the legal person which received such assets and liabilities has divested itself of them. However, such a tax deferment does not apply if the legal person to which the assets and liabilities were transferred has its seat or registered office outside of Portugal. In that case, capital gains tax is immediately applicable.

Main arguments:

| 1. | By its first plea in law the Commission considers that such taxation penalises those who decide to leave Portuguese territory, in that it treats such persons differently from those who remain in the country. The Commission is of the view that the deferment of taxation, in the case of profits made in exchanging shares, should not be reserved to cases in which the tax payer continues to reside in Portuguese territory whilst denied in cases in which the tax payer transfers his place of residence to another EU or EEA Member State. Consequently, the difference in treatment put in place by Article 10 of the CIRS is incompatible with Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement. Moreover, the protection of the tax credits resulting from pending revenue should be assured in conformity with the principle of proportionality laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice. In the present case, the Commission considers that the Portuguese legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring an efficient tax regime, and that the Portuguese legislation should apply the same rule irrespective of whether a natural person keeps his place of residence in Portuguese territory or not. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By its first plea in law the Commission considers that such taxation penalises those who decide to leave Portuguese territory, in that it treats such persons differently from those who remain in the country. The Commission is of the view that the deferment of taxation, in the case of profits made in exchanging shares, should not be reserved to cases in which the tax payer continues to reside in Portuguese territory whilst denied in cases in which the tax payer transfers his place of residence to another EU or EEA Member State. Consequently, the difference in treatment put in place by Article 10 of the CIRS is incompatible with Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement. Moreover, the protection of the tax credits resulting from pending revenue should be assured in conformity with the principle of proportionality laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice. In the present case, the Commission considers that the Portuguese legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring an efficient tax regime, and that the Portuguese legislation should apply the same rule irrespective of whether a natural person keeps his place of residence in Portuguese territory or not.

| 2. | By its second plea in law the Commission submits that the benefit granted by Article 38 of the CIRS should not, in the light of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, be reserved to cases in which the company which receives the assets has its seat or registered office in Portugal. The Commission takes the view that Portugal should apply the same rule irrespective of whether the legal person to which the assets and liabilities have been transferred has its seat or registered office in Portuguese territory or elsewhere. On the same grounds as set out above in relation to the first plea in law, the Commission considers that Article 38 of the CIRS goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring an efficient tax regime. It is of the opinion that taxable persons who exercise their right to freedom of establishment by transferring assets and liabilities abroad in exchange for shares in a non-resident undertaking cannot be subject to taxation at an earlier point in time than is the case for those who carry out such operations with an undertaking based in Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By its second plea in law the Commission submits that the benefit granted by Article 38 of the CIRS should not, in the light of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, be reserved to cases in which the company which receives the assets has its seat or registered office in Portugal. The Commission takes the view that Portugal should apply the same rule irrespective of whether the legal person to which the assets and liabilities have been transferred has its seat or registered office in Portuguese territory or elsewhere. On the same grounds as set out above in relation to the first plea in law, the Commission considers that Article 38 of the CIRS goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring an efficient tax regime. It is of the opinion that taxable persons who exercise their right to freedom of establishment by transferring assets and liabilities abroad in exchange for shares in a non-resident undertaking cannot be subject to taxation at an earlier point in time than is the case for those who carry out such operations with an undertaking based in Portugal.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/21

---

Appeal brought on 18 November 2014 by Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-113/11 Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v European Commission

(Case C-519/14 P)

(2015/C 016/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder, V. Schoene, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal and annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1122/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)] (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal and annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1122/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)] (1);

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs necessary for the proceedings and the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs necessary for the proceedings and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: The General Court considers that the appellant has no legal interest in bringing proceedings since the contested regulation contains the information that ‘Gouda’ is generic. The statement at issue in the registration regulation is, thereby, merely tautological. In contrast to the General Court’s conclusion, the annulment of the registration regulation would as a result grant the members an advantage establishing the legal interest in bringing proceedings. For that reason, the action is admissible. For the same reason, it is also well-founded. The information is accepted by the Dutch claimants. The Commission therefore acted unlawfully by failing nevertheless to provide that information.

Second ground of appeal: The appellant claimed that its members had in the past delivered milk in the Netherlands, which then could be processed to make Gouda or Edam and it is probable that it was so processed. The General Court did not infer therefrom an interest in bringing proceedings. That argument is factually inaccurate. The General Court thereby misconstrued the facts, since the argument is correct. Moreover, according to the General Court, the appellant did not bring its complaint and action for ‘milk producers’. That is also a distortion of the facts, since the complaint was brought for the appellant’s members, insofar as they process milk (the milk sold to the Netherlands is processed milk) and market milk or cheese.

Third ground of appeal: The General Court considers that the rejection of the complaint does not provide the appellant with an interest in bringing proceedings. Under the law, the complaint was not brought by the appellant, but by the Federal Republic of Germany. That does not correspond to the law applicable under Regulation No 510/2006 (2), and that question has, in contrast to the General Court’s finding, not yet been decided by that court for the purpose that regulation. There are differences between Regulation No 510/2006 and the regulation it replaced, Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 (3), which the General Court failed to take into consideration and which had the consequence that, in any event, claimants such as the appellant have a right to appeal.

Fourth ground of appeal: The Court rejects the appellant’s claim that the EU’s protected geographical indications (PGI) grant the Dutch manufacturers a competitive advantage as against the appellant’s members. That is incorrect. There exists a competitive advantage, on the basis of which the appellant’s members have an interest in bringing an action for annulment of the registration regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 317, p. 22.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 octobre 2014 — European Commission v Romania, intervening parties: Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-405/13) (1)

(2015/C 016/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v Steluta Grigore

(Case C-483/13) (1)

(2015/C 016/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

(Case C-685/13) (1)

(2015/C 016/34)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid — Spain) — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego, María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

(Case C-54/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid — Spain) — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco de Santander SA

(Case C-188/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-206/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/37)

Language of the case: Estonian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra, Sección Tercera — Spain) — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia SA

(Case C-208/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dorothea Eckert, Karl-Heinz Dallner v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-380/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/39)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Vekos Trade’ AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-403/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management)

(Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Series or family of trade marks - Likelihood of association - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

(2015/C 016/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit SpA, formerly UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: J. Zindel, lawyer)

Re:

Actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the actions.

| 2) | Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration.

| 3) | Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds.

| 4) | Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Shape of a cube with surfaces that have a grid structure)

(Case T-450/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Absolute grounds for refusal - First sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves - Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Absence of sign consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Absence of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by M. Edenborough QC, and B. Cookson, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2009 (Case R 1526/2008-2) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Seven Towns Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom v Commission

(Case T-517/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Effect on trade between Member States - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over the conduct of the subsidiary - Duty to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers), in so far as it concerns Alstom; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers), in so far as it concerns Alstom;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission

(Case T-521/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing agreement - 2002 Leniency Notice - Immunity from fines - Legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SAS (Paris, France) (represented initially by: A. Schild, C. Simphal and E. Estellon, and subsequently by: J. Derenne, A. Müller-Rappard and M. Domecq, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final, of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Alstom Grid SAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Alstom Grid SAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 C 51, 27.2.2010.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (ZENATO RIPASSA)

(Case T-153/11) (1)

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

(2015/C 016/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 183/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO)

(Case T-154/11) (1)

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

(2015/C 016/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 700/2010–2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera)

(Case T-173/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Carrera - Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)

(2015/C 016/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer) and Lutter & Partner GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 306/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG and Mr Kurt Hesse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council

(Case T-384/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Claim for damages)

(2015/C 016/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (Ispahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Vitro and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, and subsequently by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and 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), and (ii) compensation for damage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls, in so far as they concern Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.:






  — | point 19 of Part I.B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls, in so far as they concern Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.:

—

point 19 of Part I.B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

| — | point 61 of Part I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

point 61 of Part I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan compensation of EUR 50 000 in respect of the non-material damage sustained by the latter; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan compensation of EUR 50 000 in respect of the non-material damage sustained by the latter;

| 3. | Orders that the compensation to be paid to Safa Nicu Sepahan be paid with default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment to full payment of that compensation, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the compensation to be paid to Safa Nicu Sepahan be paid with default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment to full payment of that compensation, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 5. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief and to pay half the costs incurred by Safa Nicu Sepahan in both those proceedings; orders Safa Nicu Sepahan to bear half the costs it has incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief and to pay half the costs incurred by Safa Nicu Sepahan in both those proceedings; orders Safa Nicu Sepahan to bear half the costs it has incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-512/11) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Irish air travel tax - Exemption for transit and transfer passengers - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to open the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of parties concerned)

(2015/C 016/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents); and Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and E. Mc Phillips, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN));

| 2) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd;

| 3) | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission

(Case T-272/12) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine - Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. (Brno, Czech Republic); and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented initially by K. Desai, Solicitor, J. Schmidt and M. Peristeraki, and subsequently by J Schmidt, R. Klotz and M. Hofmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, and subsequently by R. Sauer and C. Vollrath, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1999 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (refusal to submit to an inspection) (Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

(Case T-374/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Figurative mark KASTEEL - Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, 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: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: R. Dequiré-Portier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 2551/2010-2), in opposition proceedings between Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM and Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

(1)

Dismisses the action;

| (2) | Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

(Case T-375/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Word mark KASTEEL - Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, 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: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: R. Dequiré-Portier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 652/2011-2), in opposition proceedings between Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM and Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

(1)

Dismisses the action;

| (2) | Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Alfastar Benelux SA v Council

(Case T-394/12) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the personal computers, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of contract to another tenderer - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Action for damages)

(2015/C 016/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos, E. Chatziioakeimidou and M. Robert, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Council of 13 June 2012 not to select the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the restricted call for tenders UCA 218/07, for the provision of technical maintenance and help desk and on-site intervention services for the PCs, printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council and to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the award of the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Alfastar Benelux SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Alfastar Benelux SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Royalton Overseas v OHIM — S.C. Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)

(Case T-556/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAISERHOFF - Earlier national word mark KAISERHOFF - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rules 20 and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - ‘Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion’ - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Năstase, 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: S.C. Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: R.-G. Dragomir and G.-L. Ilie, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd;

| 2) | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

| 3) | Orders S.C. Romarose Invest to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders S.C. Romarose Invest to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Alifoods (Alifoods)

(Case T-240/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Alifoods - Earlier international and Community word marks ALDI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2015/C 016/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2013 (Case R 407/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and Alifoods, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-402/13) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Proportionality - Appropriateness - Nececssity - Absence of arbitrariness - Statement of reasons)

(2015/C 016/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decisions C (2013) 4103 final and C (2013) 4194 final of 25 and 27 June 2013, relating to a procedure under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 addressed respectively to France Telecom SA and Orange and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Orange to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Orange to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)

(Case T-556/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community collective word mark Original Eau de Cologne - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 August 2013 (Case R 2064/2012-14) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Original Eau de Cologne as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-17/13) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Contract concerning the Pocemon project - Repayment of the sums advanced - Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note - Reminder letter - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/58)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Cordewener, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Pocemon project, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the amounts that it owes to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-64/13) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project - Repayment of the sums advanced - Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/59)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Cordewener, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Doc@Hand project, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the sums it owes the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/38

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Nguyen v Parliament and Council

(Case T-20/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Lack of individual concern - Non-contractual liability - Causation - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2015/C 016/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Huynh Duong Vi Nguyen (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(65)(b) and (67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in that those provisions make the right to reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time relating thereto conditional upon receipt of the expatriation or foreign residence allowance, and, secondly, claim for damages based on Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Huynh Nguyen Duong Vi shall bear her own costs, and also those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Huynh Nguyen Duong Vi shall bear her own costs, and also those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council

(Case T-22/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for traveling time - No individual concern - Non-contractual liability - Causal link - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law)

(2015/C 016/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amal Bergallou (Lot, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(65)(b) and Article 1(67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions link the entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses and travelling time for that travel to receipt of the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance, and, second, application for damages based on Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and the costs incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and the costs incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-23/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Substantial reduction in the number of days of annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country - Lack of individual concern - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mark Bos (Ankara, Turkey); Estelle Kadouch (Jerusalem, Israel); Siegfried Krahl (Lago Sul, Brazil); and Eric Lunel (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment brought under Article 263 TFEU against point 70 of Article 1 of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as it amends Annex X to Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962, 45, p. 1385).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mark Bos, Estelle Kadouch, Siegfried Krahl and Eric Lunel shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mark Bos, Estelle Kadouch, Siegfried Krahl and Eric Lunel shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/40

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-27/14) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Article 22 of Directive 2003/55 EC - Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to annul its decision relating to the grant of a derogation - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/63)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter C(2013)7221 final of 4 November 2013, addressed to the Czech Ministry of Trade and Industry, and the Czech Energy Regulatory Office, on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/41

---

Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council

(Case T-731/14)

(2015/C 016/64)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia (Skidra, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysogonos, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested Council Regulation (ΕU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014. L 229, p. 1) and declare that the claim for annulment should be admissible in so far as the General Court of the European Union decides that all the conditions for the admissibility of the action for annulment are met; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Council Regulation (ΕU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014. L 229, p. 1) and declare that the claim for annulment should be admissible in so far as the General Court of the European Union decides that all the conditions for the admissibility of the action for annulment are met; and

| — | declare that the Council is liable to meet the costs incurred by the applicant and order the Council to pay its costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Council is liable to meet the costs incurred by the applicant and order the Council to pay its costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

| 1. | The ground for annulment is an error in the choice of legal basis:






  — | The applicant maintains that the contested regulation was erroneously adopted on the legal basis of Article 215 TFEU, although it is apparent from the objective and content of the regulation that it ought to have been adopted on the basis of Article 207 TFEU (formerly Article 133 EC) with regard to the common commercial policy and, consequently, ought to have been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The applicant’s legal interest to bring proceedings is based on the fact that the contested measure is a regulatory act which does not entail any implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and is of direct concern to the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The ground for annulment is an error in the choice of legal basis:

—

The applicant maintains that the contested regulation was erroneously adopted on the legal basis of Article 215 TFEU, although it is apparent from the objective and content of the regulation that it ought to have been adopted on the basis of Article 207 TFEU (formerly Article 133 EC) with regard to the common commercial policy and, consequently, ought to have been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The applicant’s legal interest to bring proceedings is based on the fact that the contested measure is a regulatory act which does not entail any implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and is of direct concern to the applicant.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/41

---

Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council

(Case T-732/14)

(2015/C 016/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, P. Crowther and J. Fearns, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 insofar as they apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 insofar as they apply to the applicant;

| — | make a declaration of illegality as regards the provisions summarised at paragraph 52 of the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

make a declaration of illegality as regards the provisions summarised at paragraph 52 of the application;

| — | order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine were fulfilled as regards the applicant. The applicant alleges that it does not fulfil the listing criteria and that the Council thus acted ultra vires in listing it in the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine were fulfilled as regards the applicant. The applicant alleges that it does not fulfil the listing criteria and that the Council thus acted ultra vires in listing it in the contested measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council breached its obligation to give reasons for listing the applicant insofar as it failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council breached its obligation to give reasons for listing the applicant insofar as it failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review insofar as it did not inform the applicant of its inclusion in the contested measures and failed to provide any evidence to support the applicant’s inclusion. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review insofar as it did not inform the applicant of its inclusion in the contested measures and failed to provide any evidence to support the applicant’s inclusion.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of its fundamental rights including its right to protection of its business and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of its fundamental rights including its right to protection of its business and reputation.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/42

---

Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament

(Case T-733/14)

(2015/C 016/66)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics (Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Veletsanou and M. Sfiri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Parliament D(2014)38802 dated 18 September 2014, whereby the Parliament rejected the applicants’ tender for Lot 3 in the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Parliament D(2014)38802 dated 18 September 2014, whereby the Parliament rejected the applicants’ tender for Lot 3 in the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; and

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments in support of annulment

In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the ground of the Parliament’s breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the procurement procedure at issue.

The applicants claim that the reasons stated for the ranking which was given to their technical offer and to that of the other tenderers for Lot 3 of the procurement procedure at issue, with regard to each defined award criterion, did not enable them to understand either the reasons for the ranking which their tender achieved nor the characteristics and advantages of the tenders submitted by other tenderers. The applicants claim that, if an adequate statement of reasons for the ranking of their technical offer were available to them, they would be better able to state their defence.

The applicants also submit that the Parliament infringed the contractual documents (the tender specifications and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, in relation to the method for the evaluation of the financial offers submitted by the tenderers, and which were binding on it. In so acting, the Parliament infringed both the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application, under which the contracting authority is to conduct a procurement procedure in accordance with the contractual documents and with due regard to the general principles of EU law.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/43

---

Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council

(Case T-734/14)

(2015/C 016/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 (1), Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 (2), Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (4), in so far as they apply to the Applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 (1), Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 (2), Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (4), in so far as they apply to the Applicant;

| — | declare illegal/inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare illegal/inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014.

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 Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for listing the Applicant in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (the ‘Contested Measures’). The Council is obliged to provide the specific reasons why a particular entity has been included in the restrictive measures in question. The Council failed to state any reasons for its decision to apply the Contested Measures to the Applicant, or alternatively has failed to provide sufficient/adequate reasons or even to notify the Applicant of its inclusion, and has accordingly not complied with this obligation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for listing the Applicant in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (the ‘Contested Measures’). The Council is obliged to provide the specific reasons why a particular entity has been included in the restrictive measures in question. The Council failed to state any reasons for its decision to apply the Contested Measures to the Applicant, or alternatively has failed to provide sufficient/adequate reasons or even to notify the Applicant of its inclusion, and has accordingly not complied with this obligation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures were fulfilled with regard to the Applicant. It is not managed by the Russian State and does not have “an explicit mandate to promote competitiveness of the Russian economy, its diversification and encouragement of investment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures were fulfilled with regard to the Applicant. It is not managed by the Russian State and does not have “an explicit mandate to promote competitiveness of the Russian economy, its diversification and encouragement of investment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the Applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial review. The Council’s failure to notify the Applicant of its inclusion in the Contested Measures, or to provide reasons for the Applicant’s inclusion, or any evidence in support, or an opportunity to make observations in response, breaches the Applicant’s rights of the defence, and its right to effective judicial protection by this Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the Applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial review. The Council’s failure to notify the Applicant of its inclusion in the Contested Measures, or to provide reasons for the Applicant’s inclusion, or any evidence in support, or an opportunity to make observations in response, breaches the Applicant’s rights of the defence, and its right to effective judicial protection by this Court.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. In particular, the Applicant’s inclusion in the Contested Measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the Applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment and use of property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. In particular, the Applicant’s inclusion in the Contested Measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the Applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment and use of property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its reputation.

| 5. | As regard the declaration of illegality, first plea in law, alleging that Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014 are unlawful because they are not necessary or proportionate to the objectives that the Contested Measures are apparently intended to achieve, namely imposing pressure on the Government of Russia to change its policies relating to Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

5.

As regard the declaration of illegality, first plea in law, alleging that Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014 are unlawful because they are not necessary or proportionate to the objectives that the Contested Measures are apparently intended to achieve, namely imposing pressure on the Government of Russia to change its policies relating to Ukraine.

| 6. | As regards the declaration of illegality, second plea in law alleging that the Contested Measures breach obligations of the European Union in international law, including the European Union’s obligations under Article II(1), Article XVI and Article XVII of the GATS, and a number of provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation between the European Communities and the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Contested Measures have resulted in the Member States being in breach of their obligations under Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and similar treaties. |
| --- | --- |

6.

As regards the declaration of illegality, second plea in law alleging that the Contested Measures breach obligations of the European Union in international law, including the European Union’s obligations under Article II(1), Article XVI and Article XVII of the GATS, and a number of provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation between the European Communities and the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Contested Measures have resulted in the Member States being in breach of their obligations under Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and similar treaties.

---

(1)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 54.

(4)  OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 3.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/44

---

Action brought on 4 November 2014 — Chung-Yuan Chang v OHIM — BSH (AROMA)

(Case T-749/14)

(2015/C 016/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Peter Chung-Yuan Chang (San Diego, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘AROMA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 924 502

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 1887/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, consequently rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, and declare the grant of Community trade mark EM No 924502 to be valid for goods falling within Class 7 ‘Electric kitchen machines and utensils, namely blenders, juice extractors, pasta-making machines for home use, food processors and whisks’ and Class 11 ‘Electrical cooking appliances, namely convection ovens for home use, bread-making machines, steam cookers for home use, grills, deep-fat fryers, sandwich toasters, waffle-making machines, table-mounted stoves for soups, rice cookers, machines for freeze-drying foods, frying pans, pressure cookers, hotplates, roasting machines, roasting spits, ice-cream making machines and slow cookers’ whose registration is sought; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, consequently rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, and declare the grant of Community trade mark EM No 924502 to be valid for goods falling within Class 7 ‘Electric kitchen machines and utensils, namely blenders, juice extractors, pasta-making machines for home use, food processors and whisks’ and Class 11 ‘Electrical cooking appliances, namely convection ovens for home use, bread-making machines, steam cookers for home use, grills, deep-fat fryers, sandwich toasters, waffle-making machines, table-mounted stoves for soups, rice cookers, machines for freeze-drying foods, frying pans, pressure cookers, hotplates, roasting machines, roasting spits, ice-cream making machines and slow cookers’ whose registration is sought; and

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/45

---

Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Musso v Parliament

(Case T-772/14)

(2015/C 016/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: François Musso (Ajaccio, France) (represented by: A. Gross, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the present action and declare it to be well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present action and declare it to be well founded;

| — | annul the decision of 22 September 2014;






  — | primarily on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, where appropriate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 September 2014;

—

primarily on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, where appropriate;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of a procedural irregularity arising from a lack of precision, in that the amount receivable is not certain; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of a procedural irregularity arising from a lack of precision, in that the amount receivable is not certain;

| — | in the alternative, order the joinder of the present case with Musso v European Parliament (register No 633447, case No T-589/14) of 8 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the joinder of the present case with Musso v European Parliament (register No 633447, case No T-589/14) of 8 August 2014;

| — | in the further alternative, annul the decision of 22 September 2014, resulting from the decision of 26 June 2014, which itself is liable to be annulled in the action of 8 August 2014 (Musso v European Parliament, register No 633447, Case No T-589/14);






  — | on the basis of a formal irregularity, in that the decision of 26 June 2014 has not been signed by the President; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul the decision of 22 September 2014, resulting from the decision of 26 June 2014, which itself is liable to be annulled in the action of 8 August 2014 (Musso v European Parliament, register No 633447, Case No T-589/14);

—

on the basis of a formal irregularity, in that the decision of 26 June 2014 has not been signed by the President;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which serves as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which serves as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published;

| — | alternatively, on the basis that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of a vested right; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of a vested right;

| — | reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions; |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 22 September, that is to say, the contested debit note, was issued 12 years after the Parliament established its book debt in respect of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 22 September, that is to say, the contested debit note, was issued 12 years after the Parliament established its book debt in respect of the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the contested debit note in that the Parliament’s book debt is neither certain nor correct for the purposes of Article 81 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) and is, moreover, unverifiable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the contested debit note in that the Parliament’s book debt is neither certain nor correct for the purposes of Article 81 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) and is, moreover, unverifiable.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, in that, that decision was not signed by the President of the Parliament in accordance with the Parliament's Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, in that, that decision was not signed by the President of the Parliament in accordance with the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which served as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published, in breach of Article 28 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which served as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published, in breach of Article 28 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time, in that the Parliament waited eight years before beginning the recovery procedure against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time, in that the Parliament waited eight years before beginning the recovery procedure against the applicant.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the vested right, in that the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, prejudices the pension entitlements which the applicant acquired on 3 August 1994. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the vested right, in that the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, prejudices the pension entitlements which the applicant acquired on 3 August 1994.

---

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

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/47

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM)

(Case T-647/13) (1)

(2015/C 016/70)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-59/09 RENV) (1)

(Civil Service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - EIB staff - Annual appraisal - Internal rules - Appeals procedure - Right to be heard - Infringement by the Appeals Committee - Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee - Psychological harassment - No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages)

(2015/C 016/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008, which do not include the applicant’s name, and of the applicants appraisal in respect of 2007. Secondly, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee to remain seized notwithstanding a request to exclude a member of that committee. Lastly, application to establish that the applicant is the victim of psychological harassment and for an order that the defendant cease the harassment and pay damages for the material and non-material harm sustained.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 November 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 November 2008;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages for the harm alleged as a result of psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages for the harm alleged as a result of psychological harassment;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-59/09, T-264/11 P and F-59/09 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-59/09, T-264/11 P and F-59/09 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29/8/2009, p. 49.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-156/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Action for damages - Wrongful conduct - Harassment by line-managers - Occupational disease - Damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations not compensating in full for the harm suffered - Application for supplementary damages)

(2015/C 016/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: McCoy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: S. Bachotet and J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the decision refusing to grant damages on account of the wrongful conduct of the Committee of the Regions and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay Mr McCoy the sum of EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay Mr McCoy the sum of EUR 20 000;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the Committee of the Regions of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Committee of the Regions of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013, p. 31.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2014 — EH v Commission

(Case F-42/14) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Rule against cumulation of national allowances and allowances under the Staff Regulations - Official’s spouse in receipt of national family allowances - No declaration by the official to his administration of a change in his personal circumstances - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Demotion in step - Proportionality - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances - Failure by the administration to exercise due care and attention)

(2015/C 016/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EH (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose a penalty on the applicant of demotion by three steps on grounds of infringement of the rule against cumulation of national family allowances and family allowances under the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that EH is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that EH is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 45.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/50

---

Action brought on 17 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-133/14)

(2015/C 016/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, that decision applying the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 18 February 2014 fixing the calculation of the bonus applied to his pension rights acquired before he took up his functions at the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 18 February 2014 fixing the calculation of the bonus applied to his pension rights acquired before he took up his functions at the Commission;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/50

---

Action brought on 25th November 2014 — ZZ v EMA

(Case F-135/14)

(2015/C 016/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to assign the applicant on non-active status.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision dated 31 January 2014 of the EMA to place the applicant on non-active status as of 1 February 2014 until the alleged expiry of his contract on 15 March 2014, together with the letter dated 14 March 2014 allegedly intending to ‘clarify’ the reason for placing him on non-active status; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision dated 31 January 2014 of the EMA to place the applicant on non-active status as of 1 February 2014 until the alleged expiry of his contract on 15 March 2014, together with the letter dated 14 March 2014 allegedly intending to ‘clarify’ the reason for placing him on non-active status;

| — | annul, so far as necessary, the EMA’s decision dated 15 August 2014, rejecting the Applicant’s complaint dated 24 April 2014 against the aforementioned decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as necessary, the EMA’s decision dated 15 August 2014, rejecting the Applicant’s complaint dated 24 April 2014 against the aforementioned decisions;

| — | repair the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 20 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

repair the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 20 000 euros;

| — | order the EMA to pay all the costs incurred by the Applicant for the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EMA to pay all the costs incurred by the Applicant for the present appeal.

---