# Official Journal C 462/22 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 462 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5722 December 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 462

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5722 December 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 462/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 462/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 462/02 | Case C-417/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission (Appeals — EAGGF — Setting-aside of land — Remote-sensing controls — Green cover of parcels set aside — Financial corrections) | 2 |
| 2014/C 462/03 | Case C-605/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Welmory sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 44 — Concept of fixed establishment of the recipient of a supply of services — Place where services are deemed to be supplied to taxable persons — Intra-Community transaction) | 2 |
| 2014/C 462/04 | Case C-611/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Jean-François Giordano v European Commission (Appeals — Common fisheries policy — Fishing quotas — Emergency measures adopted by the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Actual and certain harm — Individual fishing rights) | 3 |
| 2014/C 462/05 | Opinion 1/13: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Accession of third States — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Exclusive external competence of the European Union — Risk of undermining the uniform and consistent application of EU rules and the proper functioning of the system which they establish) | 4 |
| 2014/C 462/06 | Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Gérard Buono and Others (C-12/13 P) and Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others (C-13/13 P) v European Commission (Appeals — Common fisheries policy — Fishing quotas — Emergency measures adopted by the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Actual and certain harm) | 4 |
| 2014/C 462/07 | Case C-65/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU — EURES network — Implementing power of the European Commission — Scope — Article 291(2) TFEU) | 5 |
| 2014/C 462/08 | Case C-100/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Rules of a Member State requiring that certain construction products bearing the CE conformity marking conform to additional national standards — Lists of construction rules (Bauregellisten)) | 5 |
| 2014/C 462/09 | Case C-221/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Trento — Italy) — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Conversion of part-time employment relationship to full-time employment relationship without the worker’s consent) | 6 |
| 2014/C 462/10 | Case C-273/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland) | 6 |
| 2014/C 462/11 | Case C-323/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC — Management plan — Adequate and integrated network of disposal installations — Obligation to put in place waste treatment providing the best result for human health and environmental protection) | 7 |
| 2014/C 462/12 | Case C-331/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law) | 7 |
| 2014/C 462/13 | Case C-334/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted without an export licence — Period granted by the customs office of export — Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination — Forged documents — Rectification of irregularities — Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999) | 8 |
| 2014/C 462/14 | Case C-387/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted before the export licence was issued — Export carried out during the period of validity of the export licence — Rectification of irregularities) | 9 |
| 2014/C 462/15 | Case C-453/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency (Protection of health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Hygiene rules for food of animal origin — Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 — Concepts of mechanically separated meat and meat preparations — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Consumer protection — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs) | 9 |
| 2014/C 462/16 | Case C-561/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 — Czech Republic) — Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes — Establishment of support schemes in the new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 143ba — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 126 — Separate sugar payment — Decoupling of that payment from production — Meaning of the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007 — Representative period) | 10 |
| 2014/C 462/17 | Case C-91/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. against the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 in Case T-591/11 Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel | 11 |
| 2014/C 462/18 | Case C-138/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 March 2014 by Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 in Case T-468/12, Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission | 11 |
| 2014/C 462/19 | Case C-170/14 P: Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2014 in Case T-380/12, Demon International v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo | 11 |
| 2014/C 462/20 | Case C-418/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2014 — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu | 12 |
| 2014/C 462/21 | Case C-428/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014 — DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato | 12 |
| 2014/C 462/22 | Case C-438/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2014 — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff | 13 |
| 2014/C 462/23 | Case C-442/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 24 September 2014 — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden | 14 |
| 2014/C 462/24 | Case C-453/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer | 15 |
| 2014/C 462/25 | Case C-461/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 16 |
| 2014/C 462/26 | Case C-471/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2014 — Seattle Genetics Inc. | 16 |
| 2014/C 462/27 | Case C-474/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 20 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo | 17 |
| 2014/C 462/28 | Case C-476/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2014 — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW) | 18 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 462/29 | Case T-219/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Autogrill España v Commission (State aid — Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad — Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure — Infringement of Article 87(1) EC) | 19 |
| 2014/C 462/30 | Case T-399/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (State aid — Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad — Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure — Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU) | 20 |
| 2014/C 462/31 | Case T-524/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2014/C 462/32 | Case T-525/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 21 |
| 2014/C 462/33 | Case T-504/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative trade mark NOTFALL CREME — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment) | 22 |
| 2014/C 462/34 | Case T-567/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark KAATSU — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009) | 22 |
| 2014/C 462/35 | Case T-53/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 23 |
| 2014/C 462/36 | Case T-188/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOTFALL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment) | 23 |
| 2014/C 462/37 | Case T-506/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark URB — Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 24 |
| 2014/C 462/38 | Case T-527/14: Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Rosenich v OHIM | 25 |
| 2014/C 462/39 | Case T-691/14: Action brought on 21 September 2014 — Servier SAS and Others v Commission | 25 |
| 2014/C 462/40 | Case T-722/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — PRIMA v Commission | 27 |
| 2014/C 462/41 | Case T-723/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — HX v Council | 28 |
| 2014/C 462/42 | Case T-742/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Alpha Calcit v OHIM — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE) | 29 |
| 2014/C 462/43 | Case T-744/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Meta Group v Commission | 30 |
| 2014/C 462/44 | Case T-747/14: Action brought on 5 November 2014 — Merck v OHIM — Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO) | 32 |
| 2014/C 462/45 | Case T-257/12: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission | 32 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 462/46 | Case F-55/08 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Appraisal — Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee — No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation) | 33 |
| 2014/C 462/47 | Case F-52/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Report of the Committee of Inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint — Annulment — Action for damages) | 33 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 462/02

Case C-417/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission (Appeals — EAGGF — Setting-aside of land — Remote-sensing controls — Green cover of parcels set aside — Financial corrections)

2

2014/C 462/03

Case C-605/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Welmory sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 44 — Concept of fixed establishment of the recipient of a supply of services — Place where services are deemed to be supplied to taxable persons — Intra-Community transaction)

2

2014/C 462/04

Case C-611/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Jean-François Giordano v European Commission (Appeals — Common fisheries policy — Fishing quotas — Emergency measures adopted by the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Actual and certain harm — Individual fishing rights)

3

2014/C 462/05

Opinion 1/13: Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Accession of third States — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Exclusive external competence of the European Union — Risk of undermining the uniform and consistent application of EU rules and the proper functioning of the system which they establish)

4

2014/C 462/06

Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Gérard Buono and Others (C-12/13 P) and Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others (C-13/13 P) v European Commission (Appeals — Common fisheries policy — Fishing quotas — Emergency measures adopted by the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Actual and certain harm)

4

2014/C 462/07

Case C-65/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU — EURES network — Implementing power of the European Commission — Scope — Article 291(2) TFEU)

5

2014/C 462/08

Case C-100/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Rules of a Member State requiring that certain construction products bearing the CE conformity marking conform to additional national standards — Lists of construction rules (Bauregellisten))

5

2014/C 462/09

Case C-221/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Trento — Italy) — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Conversion of part-time employment relationship to full-time employment relationship without the worker’s consent)

6

2014/C 462/10

Case C-273/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland)

6

2014/C 462/11

Case C-323/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC — Management plan — Adequate and integrated network of disposal installations — Obligation to put in place waste treatment providing the best result for human health and environmental protection)

7

2014/C 462/12

Case C-331/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law)

7

2014/C 462/13

Case C-334/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted without an export licence — Period granted by the customs office of export — Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination — Forged documents — Rectification of irregularities — Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)

8

2014/C 462/14

Case C-387/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted before the export licence was issued — Export carried out during the period of validity of the export licence — Rectification of irregularities)

9

2014/C 462/15

Case C-453/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency (Protection of health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Hygiene rules for food of animal origin — Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 — Concepts of mechanically separated meat and meat preparations — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Consumer protection — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs)

9

2014/C 462/16

Case C-561/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 — Czech Republic) — Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes — Establishment of support schemes in the new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 143ba — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 126 — Separate sugar payment — Decoupling of that payment from production — Meaning of the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007 — Representative period)

10

2014/C 462/17

Case C-91/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. against the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 in Case T-591/11 Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel

11

2014/C 462/18

Case C-138/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 March 2014 by Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 in Case T-468/12, Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

11

2014/C 462/19

Case C-170/14 P: Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2014 in Case T-380/12, Demon International v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

11

2014/C 462/20

Case C-418/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2014 — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

12

2014/C 462/21

Case C-428/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014 — DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

12

2014/C 462/22

Case C-438/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2014 — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

13

2014/C 462/23

Case C-442/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 24 September 2014 — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

14

2014/C 462/24

Case C-453/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

15

2014/C 462/25

Case C-461/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

16

2014/C 462/26

Case C-471/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2014 — Seattle Genetics Inc.

16

2014/C 462/27

Case C-474/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 20 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo

17

2014/C 462/28

Case C-476/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2014 — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

18

General Court

2014/C 462/29

Case T-219/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Autogrill España v Commission (State aid — Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad — Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure — Infringement of Article 87(1) EC)

19

2014/C 462/30

Case T-399/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (State aid — Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad — Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure — Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU)

20

2014/C 462/31

Case T-524/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

20

2014/C 462/32

Case T-525/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

21

2014/C 462/33

Case T-504/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative trade mark NOTFALL CREME — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

22

2014/C 462/34

Case T-567/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark KAATSU — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)

22

2014/C 462/35

Case T-53/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

23

2014/C 462/36

Case T-188/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOTFALL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

23

2014/C 462/37

Case T-506/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark URB — Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009)

24

2014/C 462/38

Case T-527/14: Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Rosenich v OHIM

25

2014/C 462/39

Case T-691/14: Action brought on 21 September 2014 — Servier SAS and Others v Commission

25

2014/C 462/40

Case T-722/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — PRIMA v Commission

27

2014/C 462/41

Case T-723/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — HX v Council

28

2014/C 462/42

Case T-742/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Alpha Calcit v OHIM — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE)

29

2014/C 462/43

Case T-744/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Meta Group v Commission

30

2014/C 462/44

Case T-747/14: Action brought on 5 November 2014 — Merck v OHIM — Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)

32

2014/C 462/45

Case T-257/12: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission

32

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 462/46

Case F-55/08 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Appraisal — Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee — No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation)

st

33

2014/C 462/47

Case F-52/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Report of the Committee of Inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint — Annulment — Action for damages)

st

33

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/1

---

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

(2014/C 462/01)

Last publication

OJ C 448, 15.12.2014

Past publications

OJ C 439, 8.12.2014

OJ C 431, 1.12.2014

OJ C 421, 24.11.2014

OJ C 409, 17.11.2014

OJ C 395, 10.11.2014

OJ C 388, 3.11.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission

(Case C-417/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - EAGGF - Setting-aside of land - Remote-sensing controls - Green cover of parcels set aside - Financial corrections))

(2014/C 462/02)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Pinborg and P. Biering, advokaterne)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent, assisted by T. Ryhl, advokat)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Ree and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by U. Persson, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Welmory sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

(Case C-605/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Concept of ‘fixed establishment’ of the recipient of a supply of services - Place where services are deemed to be supplied to taxable persons - Intra-Community transaction))

(2014/C 462/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Welmory sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

A first taxable person who has established his business in one Member State, and receives services supplied by a second taxable person established in another Member State, must be regarded as having a ‘fixed establishment’ within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, in that other Member State, for the purpose of determining the place of taxation of those services, if that establishment is characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to receive the services supplied to it and use them for its business, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Jean-François Giordano v European Commission

(Case C-611/12 P) (1)

((Appeals - Common fisheries policy - Fishing quotas - Emergency measures adopted by the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Actual and certain harm - Individual fishing rights))

(2014/C 462/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-François Giordano (represented by: D. Rigeade and A. Scheuer, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Giordano v Commission (T-114/11, EU:T:2012:585); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Giordano v Commission (T-114/11, EU:T:2012:585);

| 2. | Dismisses the action for damages brought by Mr Jean-François Giordano in Case T-114/11; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for damages brought by Mr Jean-François Giordano in Case T-114/11;

| 3. | Orders Mr Jean-François Giordano and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Jean-François Giordano and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/4

---

Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — European Commission

(Opinion 1/13) (1)

((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction - Accession of third States - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Exclusive external competence of the European Union - Risk of undermining the uniform and consistent application of EU rules and the proper functioning of the system which they establish))

(2014/C 462/05)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the Opinion

The exclusive competence of the European Union encompasses the acceptance of the accession of a third State to the Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction concluded in The Hague on 25 October 1980.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Gérard Buono and Others (C-12/13 P) and Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others (C-13/13 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Common fisheries policy - Fishing quotas - Emergency measures adopted by the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Actual and certain harm))

(2014/C 462/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Louis Paul Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin (represented by: A. Arnaud and P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, avocats) (C-12/13 P), Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Jean-Marc Penniello, Serge Antoine José Perez (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, avocate) (C-13/13 P)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P;

| 2. | Orders Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin and Robert Marin to pay the costs in Case C-12/13 P and the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean-Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin and Serge Antoine José Perez to pay the costs in Case C-13/13 P. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin and Robert Marin to pay the costs in Case C-12/13 P and the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean-Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin and Serge Antoine José Perez to pay the costs in Case C-13/13 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-65/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU - EURES network - Implementing power of the European Commission - Scope - Article 291(2) TFEU))

(2014/C 462/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-100/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Rules of a Member State requiring that certain construction products bearing the ‘CE’ conformity marking conform to additional national standards - Lists of construction rules (‘Bauregellisten’)))

(2014/C 462/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing, through lists of construction rules referred to in the Construction Codes established by the Länder, on construction products covered by the harmonisation measures EN 681-2:2000, ‘Elastomeric Seals — Materials requirements for pipe joint seals used in water and drainage applications — Part 2: Thermoplastic elastomers’, EN 13162:2008, ‘Thermal insulation products for buildings — Factory made mineral wool (MW) products — Specification’ and EN 13241-1, ‘Industrial, commercial and garage doors and gates — Product standard — Part 1: Products without fire resistance or smoke control characteristics’, and bearing the ‘CE’ marking, additional requirements for effective market access of those products and their use on German territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing, through lists of construction rules referred to in the Construction Codes established by the Länder, on construction products covered by the harmonisation measures EN 681-2:2000, ‘Elastomeric Seals — Materials requirements for pipe joint seals used in water and drainage applications — Part 2: Thermoplastic elastomers’, EN 13162:2008, ‘Thermal insulation products for buildings — Factory made mineral wool (MW) products — Specification’ and EN 13241-1, ‘Industrial, commercial and garage doors and gates — Product standard — Part 1: Products without fire resistance or smoke control characteristics’, and bearing the ‘CE’ marking, additional requirements for effective market access of those products and their use on German territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Trento — Italy) — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-221/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Conversion of part-time employment relationship to full-time employment relationship without the worker’s consent))

(2014/C 462/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Teresa Mascellani

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Operative part of the judgment

The Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997 which is annexed to Council Directive 1997/81/EC of 15 December 1997, concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, in particular Clause 5.2 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it does not preclude national legislation pursuant to which the employer may order the conversion of a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship without the consent of the worker concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-273/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland))

(2014/C 462/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215 of 27.7.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-323/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directives 1999/31/EC and 2008/98/EC - Management plan - Adequate and integrated network of disposal installations - Obligation to put in place waste treatment providing the best result for human health and environmental protection))

(2014/C 462/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Italian Republic,






  — | by not taking all necessary measures to ensure that part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO, excluding the Cecchina landfill, and to those of the Latina SubATO undergoes treatment, including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1), in conjunction with Article 6(a), of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Italian Republic,

—

by not taking all necessary measures to ensure that part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO, excluding the Cecchina landfill, and to those of the Latina SubATO undergoes treatment, including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1), in conjunction with Article 6(a), of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, and Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

| — | and by failing to establish in the region of Lazio an integrated and adequate network of waste management installations which takes into account best available techniques, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98; |
| --- | --- |

—

and by failing to establish in the region of Lazio an integrated and adequate network of waste management installations which takes into account best available techniques, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-331/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law))

(2014/C 462/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ilie Nicolae Nicula

Defendants: Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law such as the system at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-334/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Export refunds - Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 - System of export licences - Export declaration submitted without an export licence - Period granted by the customs office of export - Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination - Forged documents - Rectification of irregularities - Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999))

(2014/C 462/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nordex Food A/S

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001 of 26 November 2001, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of an export refund in specific circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the export took place without an export licence, whose existence was however established at the time the export declaration was made and which was presented, by the exporter, within the additional period of one week granted for that purpose by the competent customs office. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001 of 26 November 2001, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of an export refund in specific circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the export took place without an export licence, whose existence was however established at the time the export declaration was made and which was presented, by the exporter, within the additional period of one week granted for that purpose by the competent customs office.

| 2. | Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of force majeure, an exporter who has presented, in order to prove the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination, customs documents that are later shown to be forged, may not, after periods laid down in those articles have expired, present, in the course of pending judicial proceedings relating to the grant of the export refund, valid customs documents, even though the grant of the export refund was delayed for reasons other than those relating to the proof of arrival of those goods. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of force majeure, an exporter who has presented, in order to prove the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination, customs documents that are later shown to be forged, may not, after periods laid down in those articles have expired, present, in the course of pending judicial proceedings relating to the grant of the export refund, valid customs documents, even though the grant of the export refund was delayed for reasons other than those relating to the proof of arrival of those goods.

| 3. | On a proper construction of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, the penalty provided for in that provision is incurred when the exporter presented, within the prescribed periods, documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination that were shown to have been forged, even though it is apparent from the valid documents produced during the proceedings that the export refund applied for corresponds to that which would have had to be granted. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On a proper construction of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, the penalty provided for in that provision is incurred when the exporter presented, within the prescribed periods, documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination that were shown to have been forged, even though it is apparent from the valid documents produced during the proceedings that the export refund applied for corresponds to that which would have had to be granted.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees

(Case C-387/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 - Export refunds - Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 - System of export licences - Export declaration submitted before the export licence was issued - Export carried out during the period of validity of the export licence - Rectification of irregularities))

(2014/C 462/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV

Defendant: Productschap Vee en Vlees

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products and Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector must be interpreted as precluding, as a rule, the payment of an export refund and the release of the security lodged in that connection when the exporter concerned did not have a valid export licence at the date the export declaration was accepted, even though the actual export of the goods concerned took place during the period of validity of the export licence issued to it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products and Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector must be interpreted as precluding, as a rule, the payment of an export refund and the release of the security lodged in that connection when the exporter concerned did not have a valid export licence at the date the export declaration was accepted, even though the actual export of the goods concerned took place during the period of validity of the export licence issued to it.

| 2. | The provisions of Regulation No 612/2009 and of Regulations Nos 376/2008 and 382/2008, read in conjunction with Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding, as a rule, post-clearance regularisation of the export declaration, enabling the exported quantity to be entered on the export licence, the export refund to be paid on the basis of that licence and, as the case may be, the security lodged to be released. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions of Regulation No 612/2009 and of Regulations Nos 376/2008 and 382/2008, read in conjunction with Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding, as a rule, post-clearance regularisation of the export declaration, enabling the exported quantity to be entered on the export licence, the export refund to be paid on the basis of that licence and, as the case may be, the security lodged to be released.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency

(Case C-453/13) (1)

((Protection of health - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Hygiene rules for food of animal origin - Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 - Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Consumer protection - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs))

(2014/C 462/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd

Defendant: Food Standards Agency

Operative part of the judgment

Points 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases must be classified as ‘mechanically separated meat’ within the meaning of that point 1.14, since the process used results in a loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure which is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point, irrespective of the fact that the technique used does not alter the structure of the bones used. Such a product cannot be classified as a ‘meat preparation’ within the meaning of that point 1.15.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 — Czech Republic) — Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané v Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství

(Case C-561/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes - Establishment of support schemes in the new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 143ba - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 126 - Separate sugar payment - Decoupling of that payment from production - Meaning of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ - Representative period))

(2014/C 462/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hoštická a.s., Jaroslav Haškovec, Zemědělské družstvo Senice na Hané

Defendant: Česká republika — Ministerstvo zemědělství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 126(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘the criteria adopted by the relevant Member States in 2006 and 2007’ includes the marketing year which the Member States must choose before 30 April 2006 as the representative period for the grant of the separate sugar payment, under Article 143ba(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulations (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, No 2011/2006 of 19 December 2006 and No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/11

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. against the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 in Case T-591/11 Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel

(Case C-91/14 P)

(2014/C 462/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (represented by: M. Konieczyński and I. Kubiec, adwokaci)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel Corp.

By order of 2 October 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in its entirety, in part as being inadmissible, and ordered Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/11

---

Appeal brought on 21 March 2014 by Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 in Case T-468/12, Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

(Case C-138/14 P)

(2014/C 462/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, adwocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 30 September 2014, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina und Gęsina Wojciech to bear its own costs.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/11

---

Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2014 in Case T-380/12, Demon International v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

(Case C-170/14 P)

(2014/C 462/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (represented by: B. Osti, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Demon International, LC, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 6 November 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2014 — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-418/14)

(2014/C 462/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), in conjunction with Articles 2(3) and 21(4) thereof, be interpreted as precluding the national rules laid down in Article 89(16) of the Ustawa o podatku akcyzowym (Law on excise duty; ‘the UPA’) of 6 December 2008 (Dz. U. 2009 No 3, heading 11, as amended), which requires that the rate of excise duty laid down in respect of motor fuels be applied to heating oil if the taxable person fails to fulfil the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), in conjunction with Articles 2(3) and 21(4) thereof, be interpreted as precluding the national rules laid down in Article 89(16) of the Ustawa o podatku akcyzowym (Law on excise duty; ‘the UPA’) of 6 December 2008 (Dz. U. 2009 No 3, heading 11, as amended), which requires that the rate of excise duty laid down in respect of motor fuels be applied to heating oil if the taxable person fails to fulfil the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA?

| 2. | Does the principle of proportionality preclude the formal requirement laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA, which makes application of the reduced rate of excise duty laid down for heating oil contingent on the drawing up and submission of a list of statements from purchasers within a statutory period, regardless of whether the substantive condition requiring the sale of fuel for heating purposes is fulfilled? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle of proportionality preclude the formal requirement laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA, which makes application of the reduced rate of excise duty laid down for heating oil contingent on the drawing up and submission of a list of statements from purchasers within a statutory period, regardless of whether the substantive condition requiring the sale of fuel for heating purposes is fulfilled?

| 3. | Is the penalty laid down Article 89(16) of the UPA — which consists, as in the circumstances of the present case, in imposing on the seller, in relation to heating oil, excise duty calculated at the rate laid down for motor fuels (Article 89(4)(1) of the UPA) because the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA is not fulfilled — consistent with the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the penalty laid down Article 89(16) of the UPA — which consists, as in the circumstances of the present case, in imposing on the seller, in relation to heating oil, excise duty calculated at the rate laid down for motor fuels (Article 89(4)(1) of the UPA) because the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA is not fulfilled — consistent with the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014 — DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-428/14)

(2014/C 462/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA

Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Other parties to the proceedings

Schenker Italiana SpA

Agility Logistics srl

Questions referred

On a proper construction of Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), does it follow that:

| 1. | national competition authorities [NCAs] may not, in their own implementation practices, deviate from the instruments defined and adopted by the European Competition Network (‘ECN’) and, in particular, from the Model Leniency Programme, in a case such as that at issue before the referring court, without running counter to the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 [Pfleiderer]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

national competition authorities [NCAs] may not, in their own implementation practices, deviate from the instruments defined and adopted by the European Competition Network (‘ECN’) and, in particular, from the Model Leniency Programme, in a case such as that at issue before the referring court, without running counter to the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 [Pfleiderer]?

| 2. | a legal link exists between the main application for immunity that an undertaking has submitted or is about to submit to the Commission and the simplified application for immunity submitted by that undertaking to an NCA in respect of the same cartel, with the effect that — notwithstanding the provision made under paragraph 38 of the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities — the NCA is obliged, under § 22 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme (now § 24 according to the numbering of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme) and the related Explanatory Note 45 (now Explanatory Note 49 according to the numbering of the 2012 Model Leniency Programme), to take the following steps: (a) to assess the simplified application in the light of the main application for immunity, examining whether the simplified application accurately reflects the content of the main application; and (b) failing which — if the NCA believes that the simplified application received is narrower in material scope than the main application submitted by the same undertaking, on the basis of which the Commission has granted conditional immunity to that undertaking — to contact the Commission, or that undertaking, in order to ascertain whether, following the submission of the simplified application, the Commission has identified, through its internal investigations, actual and specific examples of conduct in the sector purportedly covered by the main application for immunity but not by the simplified one? |
| --- | --- |

2.

a legal link exists between the main application for immunity that an undertaking has submitted or is about to submit to the Commission and the simplified application for immunity submitted by that undertaking to an NCA in respect of the same cartel, with the effect that — notwithstanding the provision made under paragraph 38 of the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities — the NCA is obliged, under § 22 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme (now § 24 according to the numbering of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme) and the related Explanatory Note 45 (now Explanatory Note 49 according to the numbering of the 2012 Model Leniency Programme), to take the following steps: (a) to assess the simplified application in the light of the main application for immunity, examining whether the simplified application accurately reflects the content of the main application; and (b) failing which — if the NCA believes that the simplified application received is narrower in material scope than the main application submitted by the same undertaking, on the basis of which the Commission has granted conditional immunity to that undertaking — to contact the Commission, or that undertaking, in order to ascertain whether, following the submission of the simplified application, the Commission has identified, through its internal investigations, actual and specific examples of conduct in the sector purportedly covered by the main application for immunity but not by the simplified one?

| 3. | pursuant to § 3 and § 22 to § 24 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme and Explanatory Notes 8, 41, 45 and 46 and taking account of the amendment introduced by paragraphs 24 to 26 of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme and Explanatory Notes 44 and 49, an NCA which at the material time applied a leniency programme as described in the main proceedings could, with regard to a given secret cartel in respect of which the first undertaking has submitted or was about to submit to the Commission a main application for immunity, legitimately take receipt of: (a) only a simplified application for immunity from that undertaking; or (b) also additional simplified applications for immunity from various undertakings that had initially submitted to the Commission ‘unacceptable’ applications for immunity or applications for a reduction in the fine, in particular where the main applications submitted by the latter undertakings were made after the first undertaking was granted conditional immunity? |
| --- | --- |

3.

pursuant to § 3 and § 22 to § 24 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme and Explanatory Notes 8, 41, 45 and 46 and taking account of the amendment introduced by paragraphs 24 to 26 of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme and Explanatory Notes 44 and 49, an NCA which at the material time applied a leniency programme as described in the main proceedings could, with regard to a given secret cartel in respect of which the first undertaking has submitted or was about to submit to the Commission a main application for immunity, legitimately take receipt of: (a) only a simplified application for immunity from that undertaking; or (b) also additional simplified applications for immunity from various undertakings that had initially submitted to the Commission ‘unacceptable’ applications for immunity or applications for a reduction in the fine, in particular where the main applications submitted by the latter undertakings were made after the first undertaking was granted conditional immunity?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2014 — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

(Case C-438/14)

(2014/C 462/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

Other parties: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

Question referred

Are Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are obliged to recognise the change of name of a national of that State if he is at the same time a national of another Member State and has acquired in that Member State, during habitual residence, by means of a change of name not associated with a change of family law status, a freely chosen name including several tokens of nobility, where it is possible that a future substantial link with that State does not exist and in the first Member State the nobility has been abolished by constitutional law but the titles of nobility used at the time of abolition may continue to be used as part of a name?

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 24 September 2014 — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

(Case C-442/14)

(2014/C 462/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting

Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and Article 63, respectively, read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Plant Protection Product Regulation (2) (No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009) and Article 19 of Directive 98/8/EC (3), respectively, mean that a request for confidentiality, as referred to in the aforementioned Articles 14, 63 and 19 from an applicant referred to in those articles, must be decided on for each individual information source before or when granting the authorisation, or before or when amending the authorisation, respectively, by means of a decision which can be made known to interested third parties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and Article 63, respectively, read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Plant Protection Product Regulation (2) (No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009) and Article 19 of Directive 98/8/EC (3), respectively, mean that a request for confidentiality, as referred to in the aforementioned Articles 14, 63 and 19 from an applicant referred to in those articles, must be decided on for each individual information source before or when granting the authorisation, or before or when amending the authorisation, respectively, by means of a decision which can be made known to interested third parties?

| 2. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: must Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive (4) be interpreted as meaning that in the absence of a decision as referred to in the previous question, the respondent, as a national authority, is obliged to disclose the environmental information requested when such a request is made after the granting of the authorisation or after the amendment of the authorisation respectively? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: must Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive (4) be interpreted as meaning that in the absence of a decision as referred to in the previous question, the respondent, as a national authority, is obliged to disclose the environmental information requested when such a request is made after the granting of the authorisation or after the amendment of the authorisation respectively?

| 3. | How must the term ‘emissions into the environment’ in Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive be interpreted, given what the parties have stated in that regard in section 5.5 of this interlocutory judgment, against the background of the content of the documents as set out in section 5.2? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How must the term ‘emissions into the environment’ in Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive be interpreted, given what the parties have stated in that regard in section 5.5 of this interlocutory judgment, against the background of the content of the documents as set out in section 5.2?

| 4. | (a) | Can data which provide an estimate of the release into the environment of a product, its active ingredient(s) and other components as a result of the use of the product be deemed to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

Can data which provide an estimate of the release into the environment of a product, its active ingredient(s) and other components as a result of the use of the product be deemed to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’?

| (b) | If so, does it matter whether those data have been obtained by means of (semi-) field studies or other types of studies (such as, for example, laboratory studies and translocation studies)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If so, does it matter whether those data have been obtained by means of (semi-) field studies or other types of studies (such as, for example, laboratory studies and translocation studies)?

| 5. | Can laboratory studies be deemed to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’ when the test is aimed at examining isolated aspects under standardised conditions and in that framework many factors, such as, for example (climatological influences) are excluded and the tests are often conducted with — in comparison with customary practice — high dosages? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can laboratory studies be deemed to be ‘information on emissions into the environment’ when the test is aimed at examining isolated aspects under standardised conditions and in that framework many factors, such as, for example (climatological influences) are excluded and the tests are often conducted with — in comparison with customary practice — high dosages?

| 6. | In that regard, must residues after the application of the product in the experimental set-up, in, for example, the air or on the ground, leaves, pollen or nectar of a crop (which is derived from treated seed), in honey or on non-target organisms also be included under ‘emissions into the environment’? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In that regard, must residues after the application of the product in the experimental set-up, in, for example, the air or on the ground, leaves, pollen or nectar of a crop (which is derived from treated seed), in honey or on non-target organisms also be included under ‘emissions into the environment’?

| 7. | And is that also the case in respect of the degree of (dust) drift when the product is applied in the experimental set-up? |
| --- | --- |

7.

And is that also the case in respect of the degree of (dust) drift when the product is applied in the experimental set-up?

| 8. | Do the words ‘information on emissions into the environment’, as referred to in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive, mean that, if there are emissions into the environment, the information source must be disclosed in its entirety and not be limited to the (measurement) data which may, where applicable, be derived therefrom? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Do the words ‘information on emissions into the environment’, as referred to in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 4(2) of the Environmental Information Directive, mean that, if there are emissions into the environment, the information source must be disclosed in its entirety and not be limited to the (measurement) data which may, where applicable, be derived therefrom?

| 9. | Does the application of the exception relating to commercial or industrial information within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 4(2)(d) require a distinction to be made between ‘emissions’, on the one hand, and ‘discharges and other releases into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Directive, on the other hand? |
| --- | --- |

9.

Does the application of the exception relating to commercial or industrial information within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 4(2)(d) require a distinction to be made between ‘emissions’, on the one hand, and ‘discharges and other releases into the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Directive, on the other hand?

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1).

(4)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

(Case C-453/14)

(2014/C 462/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

Intervening party: Rudolf Mathis

Questions referred

Is Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), having regard to Article 45 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that old-age pensions under an occupational pension scheme (which is initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, operates on the basis of the principle of capitalisation, is compulsory in principle but may also provide for ‘supplementary, non-compulsory’ contributions that exceed the statutory minimum amount and for correspondingly higher benefits, and the implementation of which falls to a pension fund to be set up or used by the employer, such as — in the present case — the ‘second-pillar’ pension scheme in Liechtenstein), and old-age pensions under a statutory pension scheme (which is likewise initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, but operates on the basis of the ‘pay-as-you-go’ principle, and the implementation of which falls to pension insurance funds established by statute, such as — in the present case — Austria’s pension scheme) are ‘equivalent’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/16

---

Action brought on 7 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-461/14)

(2014/C 462/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms y D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under (i) Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) amended by Directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35 (3) on the assessment of the environmental impact of certain public and private projects, (ii) Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (4) on the conservation of wild birds — until 29 July 2008, the date of designation of the location in question as a special protection area for birds (SPA) — and (iii) Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EC (5) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, from the date of that designation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under (i) Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) amended by Directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35 (3) on the assessment of the environmental impact of certain public and private projects, (ii) Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (4) on the conservation of wild birds — until 29 July 2008, the date of designation of the location in question as a special protection area for birds (SPA) — and (iii) Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EC (5) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, from the date of that designation;

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case concerns the project for a new high-speed railway line between Seville and Almería, Sections ‘Marchena-Osuna I’, ‘Marchena-Osuna II’ and ‘Variante de Osuna’, and the possibility that the Spanish authorities have failed to apply correctly relevant provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Wild Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. The Commission has reached that conclusion having particular regard to the potential effects of the works and the subsequent operation of Andalusia’s crossrail line where it passes through the ‘Campiñas de Sevilla’ special protection area for birds (SPA), taking the view that those effects have not been adequately addressed.

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

(2)  OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

(3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

(4)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2009 L 20, p. 7).

(5)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2014 — Seattle Genetics Inc.

(Case C-471/14)

(2014/C 462/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Seattle Genetics Inc.

Defendant authority: Österreichisches Patentamt

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products determined according to Community law or does that provision refer to the date on which the authorisation takes effect under the law of the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products determined according to Community law or does that provision refer to the date on which the authorisation takes effect under the law of the Member State in question?

| 2. | If the Court’s answer is that the date referred to in Question 1 is determined by Community law, which date must be taken into account — the date of authorisation or the date of notification? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court’s answer is that the date referred to in Question 1 is determined by Community law, which date must be taken into account — the date of authorisation or the date of notification?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 20 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Cristiano Pontillo

(Case C-474/14)

(2014/C 462/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Salerno

Party to the main proceedings

Cristiano Pontillo

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C 72/10 and C 77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C 72/10 and C 77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

| 2. | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

| 3. | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2014 — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

(Case C-476/14)

(2014/C 462/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Citroën Commerce GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does an advertisement for a product which indicates the price to be paid for it constitute an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC (1)?
  If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does an advertisement for a product which indicates the price to be paid for it constitute an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC (1)?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | In the case of an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC, must the selling price to be indicated in accordance with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 3(1) also include costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of a motor vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer?
  If the first or the second question is to be answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case of an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC, must the selling price to be indicated in accordance with Article 1 and the first sentence of Article 3(1) also include costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of a motor vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer?

If the first or the second question is to be answered in the negative:

| 3. | In the case of an invitation to purchase within the meaning of Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29/EC (2), must the ‘price inclusive of taxes’ to be indicated in accordance with the provision governing the first scenario contemplated in Article 7(4)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC also include, in the case of a motor vehicle, costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case of an invitation to purchase within the meaning of Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29/EC (2), must the ‘price inclusive of taxes’ to be indicated in accordance with the provision governing the first scenario contemplated in Article 7(4)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC also include, in the case of a motor vehicle, costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer?

---

(1)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

---

General Court

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Autogrill España v Commission

(Case T-219/10) (1)

((State aid - Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad - Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure - Infringement of Article 87(1) EC))

(2014/C 462/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Autogrill España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and subsequently by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission (represented by R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

(Case T-399/11) (1)

((State aid - Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad - Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure - Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU))

(2014/C 462/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain); and Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented initially by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and subsequently by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by R. Lyal, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (JO 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)

(Case T-524/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL - Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Zhangjiakou, China) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2011 (Case R 1870/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)

(Case T-525/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL - Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Zhangjiakou, China) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case R 1868/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME)

(Case T-504/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative trade mark NOTFALL CREME - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))

(2014/C 462/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2012 (Case R 271/2012-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign NOTFALL CREME as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU)

(Case T-567/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark KAATSU - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 435/2012-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign KAATSU as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line)

(Case T-53/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 860/2012-5), concerning the application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a wavy line.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)

(Case T-188/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark NOTFALL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))

(2014/C 462/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Healing Herbs Ltd (Walterstone, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Price, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 132/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Healing Herbs Ltd and Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Healing Herbs Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Healing Herbs Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 156 of 1.6.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

(Case T-506/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark URB - Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary) (represented by: G. Bozocea, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2013 (Case R 1309/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Harun Adiguzel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs.

| 3. | Declares that Harun Adiguzel is to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that Harun Adiguzel is to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/25

---

Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Rosenich v OHIM

(Case T-527/14)

(2014/C 462/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Paul Rosenich (Triesenberg, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and C. Eckhartt, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 2063/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 2063/2012-4;

| — | annul the decision taken by the Director of the ‘Operations Support Department’ of OHIM of 7 September 2012, by which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of professional representatives before the defendant office was rejected, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the Director of the ‘Operations Support Department’ of OHIM of 7 September 2012, by which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of professional representatives before the defendant office was rejected, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2012;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 93 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the principle of freedom to provide services within the European Economic Area as provided for by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, since it confirms the rejection of his application to be included in the list of professional representatives before OHIM, despite the fact that, although he does not have his professional residence in a Member State of the European Union, he has it in a Member State of the European Economic Area.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/25

---

Action brought on 21 September 2014 — Servier SAS and Others v Commission

(Case T-691/14)

(2014/C 462/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Servier SAS (Suresnes, France); Servier Laboratories Ltd (Wexham, United Kingdom); and Les Laboratoires Servier SAS (Suresnes) (represented by: I. S. Forrester, QC, J. Killick, Barrister, O. de Juvigny, avocat, and M.-I. F. Utges Manley, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul in whole or in part Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision No C (2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [AT.39.612 — Périndopril (Servier)] insofar as they relate to Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in whole or in part Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision No C (2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [AT.39.612 — Périndopril (Servier)] insofar as they relate to Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited;

| — | in the alternative, exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce the amount of the fines imposed on Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited under Article 7 of that decision, by a very substantial amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce the amount of the fines imposed on Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited under Article 7 of that decision, by a very substantial amount;

| — | grant Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited the benefit of any annulment, in whole or in part, of the Decision in the appeal brought by Biogaran; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited the benefit of any annulment, in whole or in part, of the Decision in the appeal brought by Biogaran;

| — | make any Order that the Court deems appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

make any Order that the Court deems appropriate;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seventeen pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a procedural defect, insofar as the inquiry was vitiated by a hypothesis-confirmation bias. The applicants claim that, after stating publicly, at the end of the sector inquiry, that the sector concerned was ‘rotten’, the Commission sought, at all costs, to bear out that statement by a decision, even if that meant distorting and rewriting the facts of the present case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a procedural defect, insofar as the inquiry was vitiated by a hypothesis-confirmation bias. The applicants claim that, after stating publicly, at the end of the sector inquiry, that the sector concerned was ‘rotten’, the Commission sought, at all costs, to bear out that statement by a decision, even if that meant distorting and rewriting the facts of the present case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, insofar as the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions — whose opinion is mandatory before the taking of any decision, in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) — was not convened in time, and insofar as only the representatives of three Member States attended the meeting of that committee. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, insofar as the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions — whose opinion is mandatory before the taking of any decision, in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) — was not convened in time, and insofar as only the representatives of three Member States attended the meeting of that committee.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, the Commission having addressed to the applicants a decision of 919 pages, without taking into account the constraints of time and form that must be respected when lodging an appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, the Commission having addressed to the applicants a decision of 919 pages, without taking into account the constraints of time and form that must be respected when lodging an appeal.

| 4. | Fourth to twelfth pleas in law alleging errors of assessment and of law, the Commission having incorrectly characterised the settlement agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as amicable in breach of Article 101 TFEU.






  — | The applicants claim in particular that, in order to classify the restriction agreements ‘by object’, the Commission relied on three factors, so broadly defined that they are ineffective, to distinguish legitimate amicable settlements from anti-competitive agreements (existence of a transfer of value inducing the generics manufacturer to compromise effectively any commercial benefit whatsoever, restriction of competition amounting to restriction of the commercial freedom of the generics manufacturer and potential competition between the parties amounting to the absence of obstacles rendering the future entry of the generics manufacturer onto the market impossible). |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth to twelfth pleas in law alleging errors of assessment and of law, the Commission having incorrectly characterised the settlement agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as amicable in breach of Article 101 TFEU.

—

The applicants claim in particular that, in order to classify the restriction agreements ‘by object’, the Commission relied on three factors, so broadly defined that they are ineffective, to distinguish legitimate amicable settlements from anti-competitive agreements (existence of a transfer of value inducing the generics manufacturer to compromise effectively any commercial benefit whatsoever, restriction of competition amounting to restriction of the commercial freedom of the generics manufacturer and potential competition between the parties amounting to the absence of obstacles rendering the future entry of the generics manufacturer onto the market impossible).

| — | Furthermore, by distorting the legitimate objective and the context of the agreements (inter alia, by disregarding, despite reality, the existence of serious technical and regulatory difficulties preventing generics manufacturers from entering the market as well as the existence of parallel legal proceedings), the Commission vitiated, with several errors of assessment, its conclusion that the purpose of the agreements was to restrict competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, by distorting the legitimate objective and the context of the agreements (inter alia, by disregarding, despite reality, the existence of serious technical and regulatory difficulties preventing generics manufacturers from entering the market as well as the existence of parallel legal proceedings), the Commission vitiated, with several errors of assessment, its conclusion that the purpose of the agreements was to restrict competition.

| — | Finally, the analysis of the ‘effects’ of the agreements is vitiated by a contradiction of reasoning and by the fact that the Commission did not use a realistic counterfactual scenario. The contested decision is based entirely on an ex-ante analysis of hypothetical effects, virtually reproducing its analysis per object in breach of case-law, so that, it concluded that there were anti-competitive effects despite the absence of any real effect on the market. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, the analysis of the ‘effects’ of the agreements is vitiated by a contradiction of reasoning and by the fact that the Commission did not use a realistic counterfactual scenario. The contested decision is based entirely on an ex-ante analysis of hypothetical effects, virtually reproducing its analysis per object in breach of case-law, so that, it concluded that there were anti-competitive effects despite the absence of any real effect on the market.

| 5. | Thirteenth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, an error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission artificially characterised the agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as containing five separate breaches. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Thirteenth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, an error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission artificially characterised the agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as containing five separate breaches.

| 6. | Fourteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission wrongly and artificially restricted the relevant market for finished products to the single molecule of perindopril, by excluding the fifteen other enzyme conversion inhibitors available on the market. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Fourteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission wrongly and artificially restricted the relevant market for finished products to the single molecule of perindopril, by excluding the fifteen other enzyme conversion inhibitors available on the market.

| 7. | Fifteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, insofar as the Commission incorrectly concluded that the applicants held a dominant position on the relevant market. The applicants claim that the Commission’s conclusion arises from the artificial restriction of the relevant market to Perindopril only. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Fifteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, insofar as the Commission incorrectly concluded that the applicants held a dominant position on the relevant market. The applicants claim that the Commission’s conclusion arises from the artificial restriction of the relevant market to Perindopril only.

| 8. | Sixteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission incorrectly classified the applicants as undertakings in a dominant position on the ‘technology’ market.
  The applicants claim that the Commission defined the ‘technology’ market in an insufficiently clear and, in any event, incorrect manner, that only reproduced the market of finished product, and incorrectly found that Servier held a dominant position on that hypothetical market. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Sixteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission incorrectly classified the applicants as undertakings in a dominant position on the ‘technology’ market.

The applicants claim that the Commission defined the ‘technology’ market in an insufficiently clear and, in any event, incorrect manner, that only reproduced the market of finished product, and incorrectly found that Servier held a dominant position on that hypothetical market.

| 9. | Seventeenth plea in law alleging an error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission incorrectly took the view that the applicants abused their dominant position by entering into amicable settlements (in doing so, the Commission simultaneously applied Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to the same facts, contrary to case-law), and by acquiring embryonic technology from a European SME. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Seventeenth plea in law alleging an error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission incorrectly took the view that the applicants abused their dominant position by entering into amicable settlements (in doing so, the Commission simultaneously applied Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to the same facts, contrary to case-law), and by acquiring embryonic technology from a European SME.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/27

---

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — PRIMA v Commission

(Case T-722/14)

(2014/C 462/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Yakor Sergeyev Ruskov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the applicant’s bid made in the context of public procurement procedure PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the applicant’s bid made in the context of public procurement procedure PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events;

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the performance of the contract was awarded to another tenderer, and annul all the subsequent decisions relating to the conclusion of a contract for the performance of the contract, including the decision of the European Commission of 12 September 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the performance of the contract was awarded to another tenderer, and annul all the subsequent decisions relating to the conclusion of a contract for the performance of the contract, including the decision of the European Commission of 12 September 2014;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to provide information






  — | the contracting authority provided the information requested by PRIMA relating to the characteristics of the successful bid, but failed to provide information relating to the relative advantages of that bid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to provide information

—

the contracting authority provided the information requested by PRIMA relating to the characteristics of the successful bid, but failed to provide information relating to the relative advantages of that bid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the award criteria






  — | the award criteria created by the contracting authority were not applied correctly and objectively, as a result of which the marks awarded for the fulfilment of those criteria are not relevant; it follows that equal access and treatment of all the tenderers have not been ensured. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the award criteria

—

the award criteria created by the contracting authority were not applied correctly and objectively, as a result of which the marks awarded for the fulfilment of those criteria are not relevant; it follows that equal access and treatment of all the tenderers have not been ensured.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles governing the award of public contracts






  — | the decision to award the contract was taken after the date of the first decision, by which PRIMA’s bid was rejected; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles governing the award of public contracts

—

the decision to award the contract was taken after the date of the first decision, by which PRIMA’s bid was rejected;

| — | the contracting authority failed to inform PRIMA about that decision, which is an infringement of the principles of transparency and equality of participants to the procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contracting authority failed to inform PRIMA about that decision, which is an infringement of the principles of transparency and equality of participants to the procedure;

| — | the failure to provide the information concerning that decision considerably adversely affected PRIMA’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

the failure to provide the information concerning that decision considerably adversely affected PRIMA’s rights of defence.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/28

---

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — HX v Council

(Case T-723/14)

(2014/C 462/41)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Stanislav Koyev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | hold the present action to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold the present action to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded;

| — | examine the present action under the accelerated procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

examine the present action under the accelerated procedure;

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 and Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in the annex to Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 and Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in the annex to Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 in so far as they add the applicant to the list in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

| — | order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial:






  — | the applicant was not informed about the contested measures, he was not provided with any credible evidence or indication justifying his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned, although the Council must bear the burden of proof; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial:

—

the applicant was not informed about the contested measures, he was not provided with any credible evidence or indication justifying his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned, although the Council must bear the burden of proof;

| — | the accusations against the applicant, that he was ‘responsible for violent repression of the civilian population in Syria’ are neither clear nor complete and are based on conjecture. |
| --- | --- |

—

the accusations against the applicant, that he was ‘responsible for violent repression of the civilian population in Syria’ are neither clear nor complete and are based on conjecture.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement to provide reasons:






  — | the contested measures contain only unreasoned allegations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement to provide reasons:

—

the contested measures contain only unreasoned allegations;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection:






  — | as a result of the unlawful reversal of the burden of proof, the defendant had the possibility of correcting its wrongful and unlawful measures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection:

—

as a result of the unlawful reversal of the burden of proof, the defendant had the possibility of correcting its wrongful and unlawful measures;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of a range of factual errors committed by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of a range of factual errors committed by the Council.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and the freedom to conduct a business:






  — | on the basis of the contested measures, the applicant is unlawfully deprived of the possibility of enjoying his property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and the freedom to conduct a business:

—

on the basis of the contested measures, the applicant is unlawfully deprived of the possibility of enjoying his property.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to a normal life because the measures imposed are not compatible with the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading punishment or treatment in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to a normal life because the measures imposed are not compatible with the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading punishment or treatment in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of the reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures unlawfully adversely affects his standing in society and with his partners. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of the reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures unlawfully adversely affects his standing in society and with his partners.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/29

---

Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Alpha Calcit v OHIM — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE)

(Case T-742/14)

(2014/C 462/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Materis Paints Italia SpA (Novate Milanese, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark ‘CALCILITE’ — Community trade mark No 5 0 74  745

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 753/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision with regard to the following goods: paints, varnishes, lacquers, preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood, colorants, mordants, raw natural resins (class 2); pargets (class 19); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with regard to the following goods: paints, varnishes, lacquers, preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood, colorants, mordants, raw natural resins (class 2); pargets (class 19);

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/30

---

Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Meta Group v Commission

(Case T-744/14)

(2014/C 462/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini and A. Formica, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from the grant contracts mentioned below, totalling EUR 5 66  377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offset carried out in respect of the applicant’s claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from the grant contracts mentioned below, totalling EUR 5 66  377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offset carried out in respect of the applicant’s claims;

| — | consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant that sum of EUR 5 66  377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant that sum of EUR 5 66  377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation;

| — | furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 8 15  000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offset. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 8 15  000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offset.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the present action concerns the Commission’s alleged breach of the contracts Take It Up (No 245637), BCreative (No 245599) and Ecolink+ (No 256224), concluded in the framework of the ‘Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development’.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward 10 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea: failure by the Commission to comply with the contractual terms in determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers (infringement of Article II.19.1(d) of Annex II to the grant contracts).






  — | In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission acted in breach of Article II.19.1(d) of Annex II, under which the costs of the contracted service providers, as professionals providing their services for the implementation of the project in receipt of subsidies, within the terms of the contracts concluded inter partes, must be determined in accordance with the [accounting] standards of the Member State in which the beneficiary carries on its activities. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea: failure by the Commission to comply with the contractual terms in determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers (infringement of Article II.19.1(d) of Annex II to the grant contracts).

—

In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission acted in breach of Article II.19.1(d) of Annex II, under which the costs of the contracted service providers, as professionals providing their services for the implementation of the project in receipt of subsidies, within the terms of the contracts concluded inter partes, must be determined in accordance with the [accounting] standards of the Member State in which the beneficiary carries on its activities.

| 2. | Second plea: failure by the Commission to comply with the contractual terms in determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers (infringement of Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts).






  — | In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission also acted in breach of Article II.19.1(b) to the grant contracts, under which the eligible costs must be determined in accordance with the general [accounting] standards in force when the contract was signed. In particular, the reference made by the Commission to the parameters specified for the ‘Marie Curie’ programmes is wholly inappropriate and arbitrary, since those parameters relate to rules which did not come into force until 2011 and which, in addition, apply exclusively to the FP7 (the Seventh EU Framework Programme), and which, in consequence, were not in force, as such, at the material time for the purposes of the present dispute. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: failure by the Commission to comply with the contractual terms in determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers (infringement of Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts).

—

In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission also acted in breach of Article II.19.1(b) to the grant contracts, under which the eligible costs must be determined in accordance with the general [accounting] standards in force when the contract was signed. In particular, the reference made by the Commission to the parameters specified for the ‘Marie Curie’ programmes is wholly inappropriate and arbitrary, since those parameters relate to rules which did not come into force until 2011 and which, in addition, apply exclusively to the FP7 (the Seventh EU Framework Programme), and which, in consequence, were not in force, as such, at the material time for the purposes of the present dispute.

| 3. | Third plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article I.11 (‘Other Special Conditions’) of the grant contract for the Take it up project.






  — | With specific regard to the CIP programme contracts and, in particular, the contract relating to the Take it up project, the Commission infringed Article I.11, given that it consistently failed to take any formal or implied decision rejecting the methodology proposed by META for the implementation of that contractual term. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article I.11 (‘Other Special Conditions’) of the grant contract for the Take it up project.

—

With specific regard to the CIP programme contracts and, in particular, the contract relating to the Take it up project, the Commission infringed Article I.11, given that it consistently failed to take any formal or implied decision rejecting the methodology proposed by META for the implementation of that contractual term.

| 4. | Fourth plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts by classifying as a ‘subcontract’ the employment relationship of the experts who worked with the applicant company.






  — | The Commission acted in further breach of Article II.19.1(b) in so far as it failed, wrongly, to apply, in the case of the experts employed by META to implement the projects in receipt of subsidies, the criteria and accounting standards for ‘intra muros consultants’, in accordance with the definition provided by the Commission itself in the Financial Guidelines of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programme. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts by classifying as a ‘subcontract’ the employment relationship of the experts who worked with the applicant company.

—

The Commission acted in further breach of Article II.19.1(b) in so far as it failed, wrongly, to apply, in the case of the experts employed by META to implement the projects in receipt of subsidies, the criteria and accounting standards for ‘intra muros consultants’, in accordance with the definition provided by the Commission itself in the Financial Guidelines of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programme.

| 5. | Fifth plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts as regards the recognition of indirect costs relating to the ‘in house consultants’.






  — | The Commission acted in further breach of Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II, specifically as regards the application of the general accounting standards referred to in that provision, since it failed to respect the general standards applying to the classification of the indirect costs relating to the ‘in house consultants’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts as regards the recognition of indirect costs relating to the ‘in house consultants’.

—

The Commission acted in further breach of Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II, specifically as regards the application of the general accounting standards referred to in that provision, since it failed to respect the general standards applying to the classification of the indirect costs relating to the ‘in house consultants’.

| 6. | Sixth plea: infringement by the Commission of the rules and principles of EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice and, in particular, breach of the principles of good faith, protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.






  — | The Commission’s inaction was liable to give rise to a legitimate expectation, on the part of the applicant, as to the correctness of the methodology proposed, so that subsequent acts of recovery/deduction of contributions due should be considered to have been adopted in breach of the principle of good faith in performing the contract. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea: infringement by the Commission of the rules and principles of EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice and, in particular, breach of the principles of good faith, protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

—

The Commission’s inaction was liable to give rise to a legitimate expectation, on the part of the applicant, as to the correctness of the methodology proposed, so that subsequent acts of recovery/deduction of contributions due should be considered to have been adopted in breach of the principle of good faith in performing the contract.

| 7. | Seventh plea: infringement by the Commission of the rules set out in the Code of good administrative behaviour and, in particular, of the rules relating to proportionality, the right to information, the right to be heard and the duty to provide reasons for a decision.






  — | The Commission failed to provide META with the requested information or an adequate explanation of decisions taken, and, in any event, adopted a disproportionate decision, given that all the objectives of the project were achieved on time by the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea: infringement by the Commission of the rules set out in the Code of good administrative behaviour and, in particular, of the rules relating to proportionality, the right to information, the right to be heard and the duty to provide reasons for a decision.

—

The Commission failed to provide META with the requested information or an adequate explanation of decisions taken, and, in any event, adopted a disproportionate decision, given that all the objectives of the project were achieved on time by the applicant.

| 8. | Eighth plea: failure by the Commission to discharge its obligation to pay META the contributions provided for under the grant contracts for carrying out the projects financed.






  — | The Commission was therefore in breach of the contractual obligation concerning the payment of the contributions due, under the grant contracts, in respect of META’s activity (in respect of which accounts were drawn up) for achieving the objectives set for the projects. Those unpaid contributions amounted to EUR 5 66  377,63. |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea: failure by the Commission to discharge its obligation to pay META the contributions provided for under the grant contracts for carrying out the projects financed.

—

The Commission was therefore in breach of the contractual obligation concerning the payment of the contributions due, under the grant contracts, in respect of META’s activity (in respect of which accounts were drawn up) for achieving the objectives set for the projects. Those unpaid contributions amounted to EUR 5 66  377,63.

| 9. | Ninth plea: infringement by the Commission of Article 80 of Regulation (EU) No 966/2012 concerning the offset carried out in relation to META’s claims.






  — | The Commission acted in breach of the rule laid down in Article 80 of Regulation No 966/2012, which permits the offsetting of debts owed to the European institutions against the claims against those institutions only where those debts and claims are of a fixed amount, certain and due. Since the claims offset by the Commission are contested, they lack the requisite ‘certainty’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea: infringement by the Commission of Article 80 of Regulation (EU) No 966/2012 concerning the offset carried out in relation to META’s claims.

—

The Commission acted in breach of the rule laid down in Article 80 of Regulation No 966/2012, which permits the offsetting of debts owed to the European institutions against the claims against those institutions only where those debts and claims are of a fixed amount, certain and due. Since the claims offset by the Commission are contested, they lack the requisite ‘certainty’.

| 10. | Tenth plea: concerning compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant.






  — | The Commission’s breach of its contractual obligations resulted, moreover, in particularly serious and unfair harm to META, in the form of actual loss, amounting, on the basis of a report appended to the application, to EUR 8 15  000, in addition to the harm resulting from the offset unlawfully carried out by the Commission. |
| --- | --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea: concerning compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant.

—

The Commission’s breach of its contractual obligations resulted, moreover, in particularly serious and unfair harm to META, in the form of actual loss, amounting, on the basis of a report appended to the application, to EUR 8 15  000, in addition to the harm resulting from the offset unlawfully carried out by the Commission.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/32

---

Action brought on 5 November 2014 — Merck v OHIM — Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)

(Case T-747/14)

(2014/C 462/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HEALTHPRESSO’ — Application for registration No 1 0 0 03  028

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 in Case R 1880/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Partially annul the contested decision insofar as the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition and rejected the CTM application for the goods in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the contested decision insofar as the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition and rejected the CTM application for the goods in Class 30;

| — | Reject opposition No B 1 1 91  607; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject opposition No B 1 1 91  607;

| — | Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 96(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 96(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/32

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission

(Case T-257/12) (1)

(2014/C 462/45)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-55/08 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - EIB staff - Appraisal - Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee - No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation))

(2014/C 462/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for partial annulment of a decision of the Appeals Committee concerning the applicant’s appraisal in respect of 2006 and, secondly, application to establish that the applicant is the victim of psychological harassment and for an order that the defendant must cease the activities constituting harassment and pay compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2007;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim seeking annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote the applicant, on the claim seeking annulment of the appraisal report in respect of 2006 and on the claim seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim seeking annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote the applicant, on the claim seeking annulment of the appraisal report in respect of 2006 and on the claim seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the 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 the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-55/08, T-37/10 P and F-55/08 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-55/08, T-37/10 P and F-55/08 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15/8/2008, p. 73.

---

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-52/11) (1)

((Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Inquiry procedure - Report of the Committee of Inquiry - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint - Annulment - Action for damages))

(2014/C 462/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: EIB (represented by: T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, an application to annul a letter from the President of the Bank stating that, following the Panel’s decision to reject the complaint brought by the applicant alleging psychological harassment, no action was necessary, and other decisions in relation to the inquiry into the alleged psychological harassment. Secondly, an application for a declaration that the applicant was the victim of psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 1 September 2010 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint alleging psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 1 September 2010 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint alleging psychological harassment;

| 2. | Orders the European Investment Bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 3  000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Investment Bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 3  000;

| 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 the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25/6/2011, p. 37.

---