# Official Journal C 373/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.373.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 373 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 551 December 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.373.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 373

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 551 December 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2012/C 373/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 366, 24.11.2012 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2012/C 373/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 366, 24.11.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2012/C 373/02 | Case C-417/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the judgment delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-212/09 Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission | 2 |
| 2012/C 373/03 | Case C-418/12 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2012 by TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11 TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v Commission | 3 |
| | General Court |
| 2012/C 373/04 | Case T-14/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the Parliament — Waiver of immunity — Action for annulment — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 4 |
| 2012/C 373/05 | Case T-491/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Premiums in the ovine and caprine meat sector — On-the-spot inspections) | 4 |
| 2012/C 373/06 | Case T-220/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects (Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a User-friendly information society — Withdrawal from the project — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission — Default interest — Procedure by default) | 4 |
| 2012/C 373/07 | Case T-286/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Fondation IDIAP v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts relating to the Amida, Bacs and Dirac projects — Eligible costs — Additional cost model — Salary of researchers holding permanent employment contracts — Absence of contractor's own resources) | 5 |
| 2012/C 373/08 | Case T-447/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications — Rejection of the applicant’s tenders and award of the contracts to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability) | 5 |
| 2012/C 373/09 | Case T-485/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J. C. Ribeiro (MISS B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MISS B — Earlier national word mark miss H — Earlier international word mark Miss H — Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 6 |
| 2012/C 373/10 | Case T-340/11: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission (Action for damages — State aid — Limitation — Damage for which compensation may be awarded — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction) | 6 |
| 2012/C 373/11 | Case T-417/12: Action brought on 21 September 2012 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW) | 6 |
| 2012/C 373/12 | Case T-419/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — LVM v Commission | 7 |
| 2012/C 373/13 | Case T-420/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — VHV v Commission | 8 |
| 2012/C 373/14 | Case T-421/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung v Commission | 8 |
| 2012/C 373/15 | Case T-424/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Gaumina UAB v European Institute for Gender Equality | 9 |
| 2012/C 373/16 | Case T-427/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Austria v Commission | 10 |
| 2012/C 373/17 | Case T-438/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission | 11 |
| 2012/C 373/18 | Case T-439/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission | 11 |
| 2012/C 373/19 | Case T-440/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission | 12 |
| 2012/C 373/20 | Case T-441/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission | 12 |
| 2012/C 373/21 | Case T-446/12: Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council | 12 |
| 2012/C 373/22 | Case T-402/11: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2012 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission | 13 |
| 2012/C 373/23 | Case T-617/11: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE) | 13 |
| 2012/C 373/24 | Case T-96/12: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission | 13 |
| 2012/C 373/25 | Case T-105/12: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission | 13 |
| 2012/C 373/26 | Case T-260/12: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission | 13 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2012/C 373/02

Case C-417/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the judgment delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-212/09 Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission

2

2012/C 373/03

Case C-418/12 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2012 by TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11 TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v Commission

3

General Court

2012/C 373/04

Case T-14/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the Parliament — Waiver of immunity — Action for annulment — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

4

2012/C 373/05

Case T-491/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Premiums in the ovine and caprine meat sector — On-the-spot inspections)

4

2012/C 373/06

Case T-220/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects (Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a User-friendly information society — Withdrawal from the project — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission — Default interest — Procedure by default)

4

2012/C 373/07

Case T-286/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Fondation IDIAP v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts relating to the Amida, Bacs and Dirac projects — Eligible costs — Additional cost model — Salary of researchers holding permanent employment contracts — Absence of contractor's own resources)

5

2012/C 373/08

Case T-447/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications — Rejection of the applicant’s tenders and award of the contracts to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)

5

2012/C 373/09

Case T-485/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J. C. Ribeiro (MISS B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MISS B — Earlier national word mark miss H — Earlier international word mark Miss H — Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

6

2012/C 373/10

Case T-340/11: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission (Action for damages — State aid — Limitation — Damage for which compensation may be awarded — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

6

2012/C 373/11

Case T-417/12: Action brought on 21 September 2012 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)

6

2012/C 373/12

Case T-419/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — LVM v Commission

7

2012/C 373/13

Case T-420/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — VHV v Commission

8

2012/C 373/14

Case T-421/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung v Commission

8

2012/C 373/15

Case T-424/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Gaumina UAB v European Institute for Gender Equality

9

2012/C 373/16

Case T-427/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Austria v Commission

10

2012/C 373/17

Case T-438/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

11

2012/C 373/18

Case T-439/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

11

2012/C 373/19

Case T-440/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

12

2012/C 373/20

Case T-441/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

12

2012/C 373/21

Case T-446/12: Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council

12

2012/C 373/22

Case T-402/11: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2012 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission

13

2012/C 373/23

Case T-617/11: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)

13

2012/C 373/24

Case T-96/12: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

13

2012/C 373/25

Case T-105/12: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission

13

2012/C 373/26

Case T-260/12: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission

13

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/1

---

2012/C 373/01

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

OJ C 366, 24.11.2012

Past publications

OJ C 355, 17.11.2012

OJ C 343, 10.11.2012

OJ C 331, 27.10.2012

OJ C 319, 20.10.2012

OJ C 311, 13.10.2012

OJ C 303, 6.10.2012

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/2

---

Appeal brought on 13 September 2012 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the judgment delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-212/09 Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission

(Case C-417/12 P)

2012/C 373/02

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Main head of claim:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court in whole or in part;

| — | Find in favour of the appellant in respect of the arguments which were put forward before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Find in favour of the appellant in respect of the arguments which were put forward before the General Court;

In the alternative:

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh hearing and judgment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh hearing and judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court’s judgment concerned the review of the Commission’s Decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred in the amount of DKK 749 million by the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the setting aside of land. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court’s judgment concerned the review of the Commission’s Decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred in the amount of DKK 749 million by the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the setting aside of land.

| 2. | Firstly, in Denmark’s submission, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of whether the Danish remote-sensing control was sufficiently effective, as the Court proceeded on the assumption that the effectiveness of the remote-sensing control could be assessed by comparing it with GPS control conducted by the Commission’s representatives in connection with an inspection in Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Firstly, in Denmark’s submission, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of whether the Danish remote-sensing control was sufficiently effective, as the Court proceeded on the assumption that the effectiveness of the remote-sensing control could be assessed by comparing it with GPS control conducted by the Commission’s representatives in connection with an inspection in Denmark.

| 3. | Secondly, the General Court’s interpretation of the relevant legal basis is, in Denmark’s submission, incorrect on a number of points, including in relation to the question whether a Commission decision can be maintained even though it is based on an incorrect interpretation of a rule which is completely central to the decision, namely the interpretation of the maintenance requirement in the first sentence of Article 19(4) of Regulation No 2316/1999. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Secondly, the General Court’s interpretation of the relevant legal basis is, in Denmark’s submission, incorrect on a number of points, including in relation to the question whether a Commission decision can be maintained even though it is based on an incorrect interpretation of a rule which is completely central to the decision, namely the interpretation of the maintenance requirement in the first sentence of Article 19(4) of Regulation No 2316/1999.

| 4. | Thirdly, in Denmark’s submission, the General Court erred in law in relation to the applied burden of proof and standard of proof for the Commission and the Member States respectively, as the General Court states that the Commission, which conducted the inspections after the expiry of the set-aside period, can discharge its burden of proof by basing its presumptions on the circumstance that the established facts were also present during the set-aside period, and as the General Court states that Denmark’s burden of proof under the EAGGF implies that proof must be made out for all set-aside areas in Denmark, not just the areas inspected by the Commission. In so doing the General Court introduced a new, generally-formulated standard of proof for the Member States which departs from the Court of Justice’s previous case-law and which imposes a standard of proof on the Member States which is impossible to discharge in practice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Thirdly, in Denmark’s submission, the General Court erred in law in relation to the applied burden of proof and standard of proof for the Commission and the Member States respectively, as the General Court states that the Commission, which conducted the inspections after the expiry of the set-aside period, can discharge its burden of proof by basing its presumptions on the circumstance that the established facts were also present during the set-aside period, and as the General Court states that Denmark’s burden of proof under the EAGGF implies that proof must be made out for all set-aside areas in Denmark, not just the areas inspected by the Commission. In so doing the General Court introduced a new, generally-formulated standard of proof for the Member States which departs from the Court of Justice’s previous case-law and which imposes a standard of proof on the Member States which is impossible to discharge in practice.

| 5. | Fourthly, the General Court, in relation to the question whether the application of financial corrections failed to make an assessment of whether the relevant conditions were satisfied, including whether there was an infringement of explicit EU rules, which Denmark had explicitly disputed at the hearing before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fourthly, the General Court, in relation to the question whether the application of financial corrections failed to make an assessment of whether the relevant conditions were satisfied, including whether there was an infringement of explicit EU rules, which Denmark had explicitly disputed at the hearing before the General Court.

| 6. | Fifthly, the General Court, in its judgment, substituted its own reasons for the Commission’s original reasons. The General Court’s reasons for upholding the decision were thus based on other — quantitative and qualitative — entirely irrelevant circumstances than those to which the Commission had accorded decisive weight for the decision. In Denmark’s submission, the General Court’s judgment is contrary to the proportionality principle. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Fifthly, the General Court, in its judgment, substituted its own reasons for the Commission’s original reasons. The General Court’s reasons for upholding the decision were thus based on other — quantitative and qualitative — entirely irrelevant circumstances than those to which the Commission had accorded decisive weight for the decision. In Denmark’s submission, the General Court’s judgment is contrary to the proportionality principle.

| 7. | Lastly and sixthly, the General Court failed to rule on a number of the Government’s key submissions and the evidence adduced; on a number of points Denmark’s arguments and factual submissions were reproduced incorrectly, with the result that the judgment’s premises and result rests on an incorrect factual and legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Lastly and sixthly, the General Court failed to rule on a number of the Government’s key submissions and the evidence adduced; on a number of points Denmark’s arguments and factual submissions were reproduced incorrectly, with the result that the judgment’s premises and result rests on an incorrect factual and legal basis.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/3

---

Appeal brought on 14 September 2012 by TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11 TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia v Commission

(Case C-418/12 P)

2012/C 373/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia (represented by: C. Malinconico, S. Fidanzia and A. Gigliola, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11, notified on 9 July 2012, for the reasons set out in the grounds of the application, and accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 in Case T-329/11, notified on 9 July 2012, for the reasons set out in the grounds of the application, and accordingly;

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011 ruling out the need to initiate infringement proceedings against Romania for breach of Community principles and directives on the award of public procurement contracts and of the ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the General Budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions’ (PRAG); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011 ruling out the need to initiate infringement proceedings against Romania for breach of Community principles and directives on the award of public procurement contracts and of the ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the General Budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions’ (PRAG);

| — | order the European Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 18 955 106, or such greater or lesser amount as may be considered appropriate by the Court, by way of compensation for the damage sustained by TME as a result of the breach of Community law on the part of the European Commission itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 18 955 106, or such greater or lesser amount as may be considered appropriate by the Court, by way of compensation for the damage sustained by TME as a result of the breach of Community law on the part of the European Commission itself;

| — | in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay compensation for the loss of opportunity suffered by TME, equivalent to EUR 3 791 021, or to pay such greater or lesser amount as may be considered appropriate by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay compensation for the loss of opportunity suffered by TME, equivalent to EUR 3 791 021, or to pay such greater or lesser amount as may be considered appropriate by the Court;

| — | in the further alternative, order the European Commission to pay compensation for the delay attributable to the European Commission in the performance of its duties, quantifiable as the overall amount represented by the legal fees incurred by TME, equal to EUR 73 044,32, or such greater or lesser amount as may be considered appropriate by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, order the European Commission to pay compensation for the delay attributable to the European Commission in the performance of its duties, quantifiable as the overall amount represented by the legal fees incurred by TME, equal to EUR 73 044,32, or such greater or lesser amount as may be considered appropriate by the Court;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission was required, under Clause 2.4.12 of the PRAG and Volume I, Clause 37, of the offer document, to deliver an ‘opinion’ on the procedure which was challenged by TME. The Commission did not fulfil that obligation.

Moreover, the Commission erred by failing to intervene to remedy the clear breach of Community law and recover the funds granted to the Romanian State in connection with the contract at issue, following the complaint lodged by TME on 10 December 2008.

---

General Court

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/4

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Vanhecke v Parliament

(Case T-14/09) (1)

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the Parliament - Waiver of immunity - Action for annulment - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 373/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Frank Vanhecke (Bruges, Belgium) (represented by: R. Tournicourt, B. Siffert and S. Lippens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially H. Krück, A. Baas and E. Waldherr and subsequently H. Krück, E. Waldherr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008 waiving the parliamentary immunity of the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action;

| 2. | orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/4

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-491/09) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Premiums in the ovine and caprine meat sector - On-the-spot inspections)

2012/C 373/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez; subsequently by S. Martínez-Lage Sobredo and finally by A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/4

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Commission v EU Research Projects

(Case T-220/10) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a ‘User-friendly information society’ - Withdrawal from the project - Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced by the Commission - Default interest - Procedure by default)

2012/C 373/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

Defendant: EU Research Projects Ltd (Hungerford, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the Commission, together with default interest, under contract IST 2001-34850.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 102 039,32, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 4.80 % per annum from 29 December 2006 until the date of full payment of the amount due; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 102 039,32, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 4.80 % per annum from 29 December 2006 until the date of full payment of the amount due;

| 2. | Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EU Research Projects Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/5

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Fondation IDIAP v Commission

(Case T-286/10) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts relating to the Amida, Bacs and Dirac projects - Eligible costs - Additional cost model - Salary of researchers holding permanent employment contracts - Absence of contractor's own resources)

2012/C 373/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fondation de l’Institut de recherche IDIAP (Martigny, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Chapus-Rapin and G. Couchepin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Sauka, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration from the Court that certain expenditure incurred by the applicant in the performance of Contract No 33812, relating to the Amida project, Contract No 27140, relating to the Bacs project, and Contract No 27787, relating to the Dirac project, concluded by the European Commission within the framework of the sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006), established by Decision 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 232, p. 1), is eligible for reimbursement and that, as a consequence, the applicant is not required to repay EUR 98 042,45 in respect of the contract relating to the Dirac project or EUR 251 505,76 in respect of the contract relating to the Amida project, and, in the alternative, an application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision by which it confirmed the conclusions of an audit to the effect that the costs at issue were ineligible and, second, an order that the Commission arrange for an audit to be undertaken of the projects, to be carried out by a company other than that which carried out the original audit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Fondation de l’Institut de recherche IDIAP to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the cost of the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Fondation de l’Institut de recherche IDIAP to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the cost of the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/5

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of Justice

(Case T-447/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications - Rejection of the applicant’s tenders and award of the contracts to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability)

2012/C 373/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: T. Lefèvre, Agent)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 12 July 2010 by which it rejected the applicant’s tenders for lots 1 and 2 in invitation to tender CJ 7/09 of 11 November 2009 for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications (OJ 2009, S 217-312293) and of all further related decisions of the Court of Justice, including the decision to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors, and second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 July 2010 rejecting the tenders submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tender procedure CJ 7/09 of 11 November 2009 for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications and awarding the contracts to other tenderers; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 July 2010 rejecting the tenders submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tender procedure CJ 7/09 of 11 November 2009 for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications and awarding the contracts to other tenderers;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/6

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J. C. Ribeiro (MISS B)

(Case T-485/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MISS B - Earlier national word mark miss H - Earlier international word mark Miss H - Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 373/09

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA (Vergada, Portugal) (represented by: A. Freire Pinto, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1526/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;

| 3. | Orders J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/6

---

Order of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

(Case T-340/11) (1)

(Action for damages - State aid - Limitation - Damage for which compensation may be awarded - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

2012/C 373/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyons, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action for damages brought on the basis of Article 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of the unlawful decision of the Commission of 10 November concerning State aid N 679/97 and, secondly, on account of an alleged infringement of the principle of sound administration stemming from a failure on the part of the Commission to compensate for the harmful effects of that decision

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Régie Networks and NRJ Global shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Régie Networks and NRJ Global shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/6

---

Action brought on 21 September 2012 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)

(Case T-417/12)

2012/C 373/11

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: SFC Jardibric (St Jean de la Ruelle, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aqua Center Europa, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 July 2012 in Case R 2230/2010-4, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 16 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 July 2012 in Case R 2230/2010-4, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 16 September 2010;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUA FLOW’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19 and 21 — Community trade mark No 1162064

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Aqua Center Europa, SA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Figurative national mark including the word element ‘VAQUA FLOW’ for goods in Class 11

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Granting the application for cancellation

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejecting the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; Absence of likelihood of confusion as to the goods; Absence of confusion between the signs.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/7

---

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — LVM v Commission

(Case T-419/12)

2012/C 373/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a. G. (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and J.-O. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2012 by which a request by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in a cartel proceeding (COMP/39.125 — Carglass) was refused; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2012 by which a request by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in a cartel proceeding (COMP/39.125 — Carglass) was refused;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to assess the documents individually identified in the application






  — | In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a specific and individual assessment of each document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally erroneous premiss that there is a general presumption that the circumstances of an exception apply in the present case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to assess the documents individually identified in the application

—

In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a specific and individual assessment of each document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally erroneous premiss that there is a general presumption that the circumstances of an exception apply in the present case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons






  — | The applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission justified the comprehensive rejection of the applicant’s request on the basis of general considerations only, and thus inadequately. The applicant regards this as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and thus as a breach of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons

—

The applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission justified the comprehensive rejection of the applicant’s request on the basis of general considerations only, and thus inadequately. The applicant regards this as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and thus as a breach of essential procedural requirements.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors of law in the interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001






  — | By the third plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of the standard exceptions provided for in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the applicant’s view, the Commission disregards the relationship between rule and exception and proceeds on the basis of far too broad an understanding of the ‘protection of investigations’ and of the concept of ‘commercial interests’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of law in the interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

—

By the third plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of the standard exceptions provided for in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the applicant’s view, the Commission disregards the relationship between rule and exception and proceeds on the basis of far too broad an understanding of the ‘protection of investigations’ and of the concept of ‘commercial interests’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the private law enforcement of cartel law as a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001






  — | By the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly denied that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. According to the applicant, the Commission should, particularly when weighing up the various interests, have taken account of the fact that the private law enforcement of cartel law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the private law enforcement of cartel law as a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

—

By the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly denied that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. According to the applicant, the Commission should, particularly when weighing up the various interests, have taken account of the fact that the private law enforcement of cartel law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/8

---

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — VHV v Commission

(Case T-420/12)

2012/C 373/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VHV Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and J.-O. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the European Commission of 17 July 2012 refusing the applicant’s request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the European Commission of 17 July 2012 refusing the applicant’s request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass);

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: No examination of the individual documents requested
  In the context of the first plea the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a concrete and individual examination of each individual document. According to the applicant, the contested decision is based on the legally incorrect assumption that there was a general presumption in the present case that an exception would apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: No examination of the individual documents requested

In the context of the first plea the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a concrete and individual examination of each individual document. According to the applicant, the contested decision is based on the legally incorrect assumption that there was a general presumption in the present case that an exception would apply.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
  Here the applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission provided merely sweeping considerations as reasons for the comprehensive refusal of the applicant’s request and therefore did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision. In the applicant’s view, that constitutes an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and therefore an infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons

Here the applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission provided merely sweeping considerations as reasons for the comprehensive refusal of the applicant’s request and therefore did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision. In the applicant’s view, that constitutes an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and therefore an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Legally incorrect interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  With the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions set out in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were legally incorrect. In the applicant’s view, the Commission failed to take account of the ‘rule-exception’ relationship and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Legally incorrect interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

With the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions set out in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were legally incorrect. In the applicant’s view, the Commission failed to take account of the ‘rule-exception’ relationship and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Failure to take into consideration the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law is a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  In the fourth plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that there was no overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents. In the applicant’s view the Commission should, in particular in the context of the balancing of the interests, have taken into account the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Failure to take into consideration the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law is a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

In the fourth plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that there was no overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents. In the applicant’s view the Commission should, in particular in the context of the balancing of the interests, have taken into account the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/8

---

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-421/12)

2012/C 373/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung a. G. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and J.-O. Schrotz)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 July 2012 refusing the applicant’s request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 July 2012 refusing the applicant’s request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass);

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: No examination of the individual documents requested
  In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a concrete and individual examination of each individual document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally incorrect assumption that there was a general presumption in the present case that an exception would apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: No examination of the individual documents requested

In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a concrete and individual examination of each individual document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally incorrect assumption that there was a general presumption in the present case that an exception would apply.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
  Here the applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission provided merely sweeping considerations as reasons for the comprehensive refusal of the applicant’s request and therefore did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision. In the applicant’s view, that constitutes an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and therefore an infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons

Here the applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission provided merely sweeping considerations as reasons for the comprehensive refusal of the applicant’s request and therefore did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision. In the applicant’s view, that constitutes an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and therefore an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Legally incorrect interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  With the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions set out in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were legally incorrect. In the applicant’s view, the Commission failed to take account of the ‘rule-exception’ relationship and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Legally incorrect interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

With the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions set out in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were legally incorrect. In the applicant’s view, the Commission failed to take account of the ‘rule-exception’ relationship and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: Failure to take into consideration the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law is a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  In the fourth plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that there was no overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents. In the applicant’s view the Commission should, in particular in the context of the balancing of the interests, have taken into account the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: Failure to take into consideration the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law is a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

In the fourth plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that there was no overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents. In the applicant’s view the Commission should, in particular in the context of the balancing of the interests, have taken into account the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/9

---

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Gaumina UAB v European Institute for Gender Equality

(Case T-424/12)

2012/C 373/15

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Gaumina UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: Saulius Aviža, lawyer)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;

| — | oblige the European Institute for Gender Equality to continue the procurement process and evaluate the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13. |
| --- | --- |

—

oblige the European Institute for Gender Equality to continue the procurement process and evaluate the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of transparency and the groundless nature of the decision






  — | The applicant maintains that, in carrying out tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13 concerning services devoted to communication activities, under Regulation No 1605/2002, (1) Regulation No 2342/2002, (2) Regulation No 1922/2006 (3) and the terms of the call for tenders, the European Institute for Gender Equality infringed the requirements to inform a participant of the reasons and grounds for rejection of his tender (Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002) and the principle of transparency (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002), and, relying on subjective and abstract criteria for evaluating the technical offers, it rejected the applicant’s tender and did not indicate the reasons for such a decision, or the number of points that was awarded, even after an additional request for information. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of transparency and the groundless nature of the decision

—

The applicant maintains that, in carrying out tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13 concerning services devoted to communication activities, under Regulation No 1605/2002, (1) Regulation No 2342/2002, (2) Regulation No 1922/2006 (3) and the terms of the call for tenders, the European Institute for Gender Equality infringed the requirements to inform a participant of the reasons and grounds for rejection of his tender (Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002) and the principle of transparency (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002), and, relying on subjective and abstract criteria for evaluating the technical offers, it rejected the applicant’s tender and did not indicate the reasons for such a decision, or the number of points that was awarded, even after an additional request for information.

| 2. | Second plea in law, concerning the incorrect evaluation of the applicant’s tender and the groundless nature of the decision to reject the tender






  — | In the applicant’s submission, the European Institute for Gender Equality evaluated its technical offer wrongly and infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002) when it rejected its tender because the technical part thereof was accorded an insufficient number of points, although the tender met the requirements of the terms of the call for tenders and the contract’s objectives and goals. The fact that the tender was evaluated wrongly is also corroborated by the fact that the defendant did not present any grounds and explanations concerning the individual points awarded for the evaluation criteria of the technical offers and information as to how many points were awarded to the technical offer overall. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, concerning the incorrect evaluation of the applicant’s tender and the groundless nature of the decision to reject the tender

—

In the applicant’s submission, the European Institute for Gender Equality evaluated its technical offer wrongly and infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002) when it rejected its tender because the technical part thereof was accorded an insufficient number of points, although the tender met the requirements of the terms of the call for tenders and the contract’s objectives and goals. The fact that the tender was evaluated wrongly is also corroborated by the fact that the defendant did not present any grounds and explanations concerning the individual points awarded for the evaluation criteria of the technical offers and information as to how many points were awarded to the technical offer overall.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 9).

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/10

---

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Austria v Commission

(Case T-427/12)

2012/C 373/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent, and by M. Windisch)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1(1)(d) in conjunction with Article 1(2) of the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2012 in State aid case SA.28487 (C 16/2009 ex N 254/2009), according to which the funding guarantee given by Austria to Bayerische Landesbank constitutes State aid by the Republic of Austria to Bayerische Landesbank for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU and is compatible with the internal market in the light of the commitments set out in Annexes I and III and subject to the conditions set out in Annex II; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(1)(d) in conjunction with Article 1(2) of the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2012 in State aid case SA.28487 (C 16/2009 ex N 254/2009), according to which the funding guarantee given by Austria to Bayerische Landesbank constitutes State aid by the Republic of Austria to Bayerische Landesbank for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU and is compatible with the internal market in the light of the commitments set out in Annexes I and III and subject to the conditions set out in Annex II; and

| — | 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair hearing






  — | The applicant submits that it was not heard by the defendant prior to the defendant’s classification as State aid of the measure implemented by the applicant. The applicant therefore had no opportunity to give an account of the actual legal substance of the agreement and to address subsequent changes in the facts of the situation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair hearing

—

The applicant submits that it was not heard by the defendant prior to the defendant’s classification as State aid of the measure implemented by the applicant. The applicant therefore had no opportunity to give an account of the actual legal substance of the agreement and to address subsequent changes in the facts of the situation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging disregard of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU






  — | The applicant states that the Commission did not give reasons in its decision to justify its classification of the measure at issue as State aid or to explain why that aid is compatible with the internal market. Accordingly it is not possible for those concerned to identify the grounds for the adoption of the legal act, or for the Courts of the European Union to exercise their power of review. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging disregard of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

—

The applicant states that the Commission did not give reasons in its decision to justify its classification of the measure at issue as State aid or to explain why that aid is compatible with the internal market. Accordingly it is not possible for those concerned to identify the grounds for the adoption of the legal act, or for the Courts of the European Union to exercise their power of review.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU






  — | In the applicant’s view, the classification of the measure at issue as State aid compatible with the internal market infringes Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. The applicant explains in that regard that no remuneration at market rates is paid for the measure at issue, nor does it have an impact on financial stability or bank lending in the implementing Member State (in this case Austria), or rather the Republic of Austria cannot exercise appropriate supervision in another Member State in respect of the achievement of any objectives that may have been set. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU

—

In the applicant’s view, the classification of the measure at issue as State aid compatible with the internal market infringes Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. The applicant explains in that regard that no remuneration at market rates is paid for the measure at issue, nor does it have an impact on financial stability or bank lending in the implementing Member State (in this case Austria), or rather the Republic of Austria cannot exercise appropriate supervision in another Member State in respect of the achievement of any objectives that may have been set.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 125 TFEU






  — | In this context the applicant submits that, under Article 125(1) TFEU, a Member State is not to be liable for or assume the commitments of the central governments, regional or local authorities of another Member State. Since that would, however, be the consequence of the Commission’s contested decision, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 125 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 125 TFEU

—

In this context the applicant submits that, under Article 125(1) TFEU, a Member State is not to be liable for or assume the commitments of the central governments, regional or local authorities of another Member State. Since that would, however, be the consequence of the Commission’s contested decision, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 125 TFEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s lack of competence






  — | In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission is assessing a situation in this case that did not in fact occur in that form. The Commission is thereby exceeding its powers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s lack of competence

—

In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission is assessing a situation in this case that did not in fact occur in that form. The Commission is thereby exceeding its powers.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/11

---

Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

(Case T-438/12)

2012/C 373/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

| — | require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission rejecting the request submitted by the applicant to the Commission for inability to pay and/or deferred payment with an exemption from providing a bank guarantee.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the applicant’s ability to pay in order to discharge the fine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the applicant’s ability to pay in order to discharge the fine.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the ability to pay of the applicant’s shareholders. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the ability to pay of the applicant’s shareholders.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as, with regard to other companies in the sector, the Commission recognised that they were unable to pay, reduced the amount of the fine or exempted them from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as, with regard to other companies in the sector, the Commission recognised that they were unable to pay, reduced the amount of the fine or exempted them from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence.






  — | First, the Commission failed to provide the applicant with the opportunity to make its point of view known. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence.

—

First, the Commission failed to provide the applicant with the opportunity to make its point of view known.

| — | Second, the Commission exceeded its powers, by breaching the principle of collegiality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, the Commission exceeded its powers, by breaching the principle of collegiality.

| — | Lastly, the Commission disregarded the obligation to state the reasons on which acts are based. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lastly, the Commission disregarded the obligation to state the reasons on which acts are based.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/11

---

Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

(Case T-439/12)

2012/C 373/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Trefilerías Quijano, SA (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

| — | require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/12

---

Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

(Case T-440/12)

2012/C 373/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

| — | require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/12

---

Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

(Case T-441/12)

2012/C 373/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

| — | require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/12

---

Action brought on 9 October 2012 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-446/12)

2012/C 373/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | In consequence, annul






  — | Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul

—

Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;

| — | and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;

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

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

---

(1)  JO 2011 C 290, p. 13.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Order of the General Court of 18 October 2012 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission

(Case T-402/11) (1)

2012/C 373/22

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Order of the General Court of 19 October 2012 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)

(Case T-617/11) (1)

2012/C 373/23

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Order of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case T-96/12) (1)

2012/C 373/24

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-105/12) (1)

2012/C 373/25

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

---

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-260/12) (1)

2012/C 373/26

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---