# Official Journal C 109/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.109.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 109 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5514 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.109.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 109

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5514 April 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 109/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 98, 31.3.2012 | 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 109/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 98, 31.3.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2012/C 109/02 | Case C-462/10 P: Order of the Court of 13 January 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environment Agency (EEA) (Appeals — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Supply of computing advice services — Rejection of the tender — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Selection and award criteria — Confusion of the criteria — Weighting of the criteria — Full copy of the evaluation report — Inadequate statement of reasons) | 2 |
| 2012/C 109/03 | Case C-496/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure — Member of the European Parliament — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities — Article 8 — Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour — Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties — Immunity — Conditions) | 2 |
| 2012/C 109/04 | Case C-590/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) — Article 7(1) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of national driving authorisation — Category B driving licence issued by another Member State — Disregard of the residence requirement — Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence — Observance of the residence requirement — Whether obligatory to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles at time of issue of licence for Category C vehicles) | 3 |
| 2012/C 109/05 | Case C-45/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 — Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b)) | 3 |
| 2012/C 109/06 | Case C-76/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) — Community figurative mark Golden Elephant Brand — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT — Reference to the national law governing the earlier trade mark — Common-law action for passing-off) | 4 |
| 2012/C 109/07 | Case C-117/11: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 28(2)(a) — Article 28(3)(b) — Exemption of certain transport services — Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport — Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply — Principle of fiscal neutrality) | 4 |
| 2012/C 109/08 | Case C-235/11 P: Order of the Court of 29 November 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts awarded by the European Union institutions on their own behalf — Call for tenders concerning the provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme (CITL and CR) — Rejection of tender — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Principle of equal treatment — Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded) | 5 |
| 2012/C 109/09 | Case C-349/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 97/81/EC — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work — Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules) | 5 |
| 2012/C 109/10 | Case C-44/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt | 6 |
| 2012/C 109/11 | Case C-45/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail, Brussels, Belgium lodged on 30 January 2012 — O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés v Radia Hadj Ahmed | 6 |
| 2012/C 109/12 | Case C-46/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Denmark), lodged on 26 January 2012 — L.N. | 7 |
| 2012/C 109/13 | Case C-60/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Marián Baláž | 7 |
| 2012/C 109/14 | Case C-420/08: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin | 8 |
| 2012/C 109/15 | Case C-533/09: Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 8 |
| 2012/C 109/16 | Case C-516/10: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria | 8 |
| 2012/C 109/17 | Case C-575/10: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Hungary | 8 |
| 2012/C 109/18 | Case C-8/11: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2012/C 109/19 | Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor in a market economy test — Application where the State acts as vendor — Determination of the market price) | 9 |
| 2012/C 109/20 | Case T-282/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor in a market economy test — Application where the State acts as vendor — Determination of the market price) | 9 |
| 2012/C 109/21 | Joined Cases T-77/10 and T-78/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (L112) and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark L112 — Earlier French word mark L.114 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Declaration of partial invalidity) | 10 |
| 2012/C 109/22 | Case T-525/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 10 |
| 2012/C 109/23 | Case T-305/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Italy v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/08 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — No need to adjudicate) | 11 |
| 2012/C 109/24 | Case T-319/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Grasso v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible) | 11 |
| 2012/C 109/25 | Case T-329/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — AJD Tuna v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible) | 11 |
| 2012/C 109/26 | Case T-330/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible) | 12 |
| 2012/C 109/27 | Case T-366/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible) | 12 |
| 2012/C 109/28 | Case T-218/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — Dagher v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate) | 12 |
| 2012/C 109/29 | Case T-572/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests) | 13 |
| 2012/C 109/30 | Case T-601/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests) | 13 |
| 2012/C 109/31 | Case T-656/11 R: Order of the Judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 16 February 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency) | 13 |
| 2012/C 109/32 | Case T-666/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma) | 14 |
| 2012/C 109/33 | Case T-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament | 14 |
| 2012/C 109/34 | Case T-15/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission | 15 |
| 2012/C 109/35 | Case T-16/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission | 15 |
| 2012/C 109/36 | Case T-19/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK) | 16 |
| 2012/C 109/37 | Case T-31/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission | 16 |
| 2012/C 109/38 | Case T-32/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina) | 17 |
| 2012/C 109/39 | Case T-39/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission | 17 |
| 2012/C 109/40 | Case T-40/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol) | 18 |
| 2012/C 109/41 | Case T-41/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Sucesores de Miguel Herreros (L'Wren Scott) | 18 |
| 2012/C 109/42 | Case T-47/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — equinet Bank (EQUITER) | 19 |
| 2012/C 109/43 | Case T-48/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament | 19 |
| 2012/C 109/44 | Case T-49/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission | 20 |
| 2012/C 109/45 | Case T-50/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY) | 21 |
| 2012/C 109/46 | Case T-51/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA) | 21 |
| 2012/C 109/47 | Case T-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT) | 22 |
| 2012/C 109/48 | Case T-56/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — IRISL Maritime Training Institute and Others v Council | 22 |
| 2012/C 109/49 | Case T-57/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council | 23 |
| 2012/C 109/50 | Case T-58/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council | 23 |
| 2012/C 109/51 | Case T-62/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ClientEarth v Council | 24 |
| 2012/C 109/52 | Case T-66/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council | 24 |
| 2012/C 109/53 | Case T-67/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council | 25 |
| 2012/C 109/54 | Case T-68/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Hemmati v Council | 26 |
| 2012/C 109/55 | Case T-69/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council | 26 |
| 2012/C 109/56 | Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council | 27 |
| 2012/C 109/57 | Case T-71/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Meskarian v Council | 28 |
| 2012/C 109/58 | Case T-72/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council | 28 |
| 2012/C 109/59 | Case T-73/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission | 29 |
| 2012/C 109/60 | Case T-77/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima) | 30 |
| 2012/C 109/61 | Case T-78/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes) | 30 |
| 2012/C 109/62 | Case T-79/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Cisco Systems and Messagenet v Commission | 31 |
| 2012/C 109/63 | Case T-82/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council | 31 |
| 2012/C 109/64 | Case T-87/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff) | 32 |
| 2012/C 109/65 | Case T-88/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council | 32 |
| 2012/C 109/66 | Case T-96/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Spain v Commission | 33 |
| 2012/C 109/67 | Case T-446/09: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission | 34 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2012/C 109/02

Case C-462/10 P: Order of the Court of 13 January 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environment Agency (EEA) (Appeals — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Supply of computing advice services — Rejection of the tender — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Selection and award criteria — Confusion of the criteria — Weighting of the criteria — Full copy of the evaluation report — Inadequate statement of reasons)

2

2012/C 109/03

Case C-496/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure — Member of the European Parliament — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities — Article 8 — Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour — Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties — Immunity — Conditions)

2

2012/C 109/04

Case C-590/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) — Article 7(1) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of national driving authorisation — Category B driving licence issued by another Member State — Disregard of the residence requirement — Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence — Observance of the residence requirement — Whether obligatory to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles at time of issue of licence for Category C vehicles)

3

2012/C 109/05

Case C-45/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 — Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b))

3

2012/C 109/06

Case C-76/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) — Community figurative mark Golden Elephant Brand — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT — Reference to the national law governing the earlier trade mark — Common-law action for passing-off)

4

2012/C 109/07

Case C-117/11: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 28(2)(a) — Article 28(3)(b) — Exemption of certain transport services — Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport — Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

4

2012/C 109/08

Case C-235/11 P: Order of the Court of 29 November 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts awarded by the European Union institutions on their own behalf — Call for tenders concerning the provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme (CITL and CR) — Rejection of tender — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Principle of equal treatment — Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

5

2012/C 109/09

Case C-349/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 97/81/EC — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work — Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)

5

2012/C 109/10

Case C-44/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

6

2012/C 109/11

Case C-45/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail, Brussels, Belgium lodged on 30 January 2012 — O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés v Radia Hadj Ahmed

6

2012/C 109/12

Case C-46/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Denmark), lodged on 26 January 2012 — L.N.

7

2012/C 109/13

Case C-60/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Marián Baláž

7

2012/C 109/14

Case C-420/08: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin

8

2012/C 109/15

Case C-533/09: Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

8

2012/C 109/16

Case C-516/10: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

8

2012/C 109/17

Case C-575/10: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

8

2012/C 109/18

Case C-8/11: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG

8

General Court

2012/C 109/19

Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor in a market economy test — Application where the State acts as vendor — Determination of the market price)

9

2012/C 109/20

Case T-282/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor in a market economy test — Application where the State acts as vendor — Determination of the market price)

9

2012/C 109/21

Joined Cases T-77/10 and T-78/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (L112) and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark L112 — Earlier French word mark L.114 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Declaration of partial invalidity)

10

2012/C 109/22

Case T-525/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

10

2012/C 109/23

Case T-305/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Italy v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/08 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — No need to adjudicate)

11

2012/C 109/24

Case T-319/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Grasso v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

11

2012/C 109/25

Case T-329/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — AJD Tuna v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

11

2012/C 109/26

Case T-330/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

12

2012/C 109/27

Case T-366/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

12

2012/C 109/28

Case T-218/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — Dagher v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate)

12

2012/C 109/29

Case T-572/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

13

2012/C 109/30

Case T-601/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

13

2012/C 109/31

Case T-656/11 R: Order of the Judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 16 February 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council (Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

13

2012/C 109/32

Case T-666/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)

14

2012/C 109/33

Case T-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

14

2012/C 109/34

Case T-15/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission

15

2012/C 109/35

Case T-16/12: Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission

15

2012/C 109/36

Case T-19/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK)

16

2012/C 109/37

Case T-31/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission

16

2012/C 109/38

Case T-32/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

17

2012/C 109/39

Case T-39/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission

17

2012/C 109/40

Case T-40/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

18

2012/C 109/41

Case T-41/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Sucesores de Miguel Herreros (L'Wren Scott)

18

2012/C 109/42

Case T-47/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — equinet Bank (EQUITER)

19

2012/C 109/43

Case T-48/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament

19

2012/C 109/44

Case T-49/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission

20

2012/C 109/45

Case T-50/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)

21

2012/C 109/46

Case T-51/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

21

2012/C 109/47

Case T-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)

22

2012/C 109/48

Case T-56/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — IRISL Maritime Training Institute and Others v Council

22

2012/C 109/49

Case T-57/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

23

2012/C 109/50

Case T-58/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council

23

2012/C 109/51

Case T-62/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

24

2012/C 109/52

Case T-66/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council

24

2012/C 109/53

Case T-67/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council

25

2012/C 109/54

Case T-68/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Hemmati v Council

26

2012/C 109/55

Case T-69/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council

26

2012/C 109/56

Case T-70/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council

27

2012/C 109/57

Case T-71/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Meskarian v Council

28

2012/C 109/58

Case T-72/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council

28

2012/C 109/59

Case T-73/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission

29

2012/C 109/60

Case T-77/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)

30

2012/C 109/61

Case T-78/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)

30

2012/C 109/62

Case T-79/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Cisco Systems and Messagenet v Commission

31

2012/C 109/63

Case T-82/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council

31

2012/C 109/64

Case T-87/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff)

32

2012/C 109/65

Case T-88/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council

32

2012/C 109/66

Case T-96/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

33

2012/C 109/67

Case T-446/09: Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

34

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/1

---

2012/C 109/01

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

OJ C 98, 31.3.2012

Past publications

OJ C 89, 24.3.2012

OJ C 80, 17.3.2012

OJ C 73, 10.3.2012

OJ C 65, 3.3.2012

OJ C 58, 25.2.2012

OJ C 49, 18.2.2012

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/2

---

Order of the Court of 13 January 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environment Agency (EEA)

(Case C-462/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Supply of computing advice services - Rejection of the tender - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Selection and award criteria - Confusion of the criteria - Weighting of the criteria - Full copy of the evaluation report - Inadequate statement of reasons)

2012/C 109/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 in Case T-331/06 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the European Environment Agency of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006/118-125101) and to award the public contract to another tenderer — Award criteria — Error of assessment

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/2

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

(Case C-496/10) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour - Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament - Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)

2012/C 109/03

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro

Criminal proceedings against

Aldo Patriciello

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with the offence of insulting behaviour in consequence of his making false accusations against a representative of the forces of order — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties.

Operative part of the order

Article 8 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of insulting behaviour, does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/3

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-590/10) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) - Article 7(1) - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of national driving authorisation - Category B driving licence issued by another Member State - Disregard of the residence requirement - Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence - Observance of the residence requirement - Whether obligatory to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles at time of issue of licence for Category C vehicles)

2012/C 109/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Köppl

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation, in the light of Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Category B driving licence issued by a Member State, without regard to the residence requirement, to a national of another Member State after the withdrawal of his national licence and after the expiry of the period in which an application for a new licence is prohibited — Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence respecting the residence requirement — Whether the Member State of residence can refuse to recognise the validity of those licences

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise authorisations to drive Category B and C vehicles issued by another Member State to an individual in respect of whom the first Member State has adopted measures under Article 8(2) of that directive, where the authorisation to drive Category B vehicles was issued in the second Member State without regard, as is apparent from the details specified in the driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation, to the normal residence requirement laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive and where the authorisation to drive Category C vehicles was issued on the basis of the first authorisation and the non-compliance with that normal residence requirement is not apparent in the new driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation to drive Category C vehicles.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/3

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 — Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-45/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b))

2012/C 109/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Bahn AG (represented by: Schmidt-Hern, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 in Case T-404/09 Deutsche Bahn v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours grey and red as a Community trade mark for certain services in Class 39 — Distinctive character of a sign which is a combination of colours

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Deutsche Bahn AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Deutsche Bahn AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd

(Case C-76/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) - Community figurative mark Golden Elephant Brand - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT - Reference to the national law governing the earlier trade mark - Common-law action for passing-off)

2012/C 109/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tresplain Investments Ltd. (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent) Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 in Case T-303/08 Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’, for goods in class 30, against Decision R 889/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 May 2008, annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division which had rejected an application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark, brought by the proprietor of the unregistered national figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, for goods in class 30 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Tresplain Investments Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tresplain Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-117/11) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 28(2)(a) - Article 28(3)(b) - Exemption of certain transport services - Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport - Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

2012/C 109/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right of the Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage — Maintenance, under national legislation, of an exemption with refund of the tax paid in respect of the supply of certain transport services — Operator supplying, to air travellers, a car parking service together with transport between the car park and the airport — Transaction to be regarded, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or several distinct supplies?

Operative part of the order

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the rate of value added tax applicable, services for the parking of a vehicle in an ‘off-airport’ car park and for the transport of the passengers of that vehicle between that car park and the airport terminal concerned must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as a single complex supply of services in which the parking service is predominant.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/5

---

Order of the Court of 29 November 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-235/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Public contracts awarded by the European Union institutions on their own behalf - Call for tenders concerning the provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme (CITL and CR) - Rejection of tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Principle of equal treatment - Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

2012/C 109/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an action (i) for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 October 2008 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the context of Invitation to Tender ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 for the conclusion of a framework contract for the provision of IT (information technology) services and user support in connection with the Community emissions trading scheme (Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL) and Community Registry (CR)) (OJ 2008 S 72-096229), and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer; and (ii) for damages

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL

(Case C-349/11) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/81/EC - Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)

2012/C 109/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auditeur du travail

Defendant: Yangwei SPRL

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9) — Permissibility of national legislation requiring an employer to draw up documents recording departures from work schedules as well as to keep and publicise the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued. It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 30 January 2012 — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

(Case C-44/12)

2012/C 109/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrius Kulikauskas

Defendants: Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

Questions referred

| 1. | With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC) (1), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of a woman's (‘B's’) pregnancy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC) (1), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of a woman's (‘B's’) pregnancy?

| 2. | With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of the pregnancy of a woman (‘B’) who is (i) his partner, or (ii) otherwise associated with him? |
| --- | --- |

2.

With reference to the Recast Directive (2006/54/EC), is it unlawful discrimination to treat a person (‘A’) less favourably on the grounds of the pregnancy of a woman (‘B’) who is (i) his partner, or (ii) otherwise associated with him?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)

OJ L 204, p. 23

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail, Brussels, Belgium lodged on 30 January 2012 — O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés v Radia Hadj Ahmed

(Case C-45/12)

2012/C 109/11

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail, Brussels

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés

Defendant: Radia Hadj Ahmed

Questions referred

| 1. | in circumstances where a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State (in this case, Belgium), in order to join, not in the context of a marriage or registered partnership, a citizen of another Member State (in this case, a person of French nationality), by whom she has a child (of French nationality), is that national one of the persons covered by Regulation No 1408/71 (1) as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant, as awardee, of guaranteed family benefits for another child who is a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) even though her cohabitation with the father of the child of French nationality has in the meantime come to an end? |
| --- | --- |

1.

in circumstances where a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State (in this case, Belgium), in order to join, not in the context of a marriage or registered partnership, a citizen of another Member State (in this case, a person of French nationality), by whom she has a child (of French nationality), is that national one of the persons covered by Regulation No 1408/71 (1) as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant, as awardee, of guaranteed family benefits for another child who is a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) even though her cohabitation with the father of the child of French nationality has in the meantime come to an end?

| 2. | if the first question is answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, and by reason of the presence in her household of the child of French nationality, is that national of a non-member country or her child, who is a national of a non-member country, covered by Regulation No 1408/71 as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant of guaranteed family benefits for the child of Algerian nationality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

if the first question is answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, and by reason of the presence in her household of the child of French nationality, is that national of a non-member country or her child, who is a national of a non-member country, covered by Regulation No 1408/71 as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant of guaranteed family benefits for the child of Algerian nationality?

| 3. | if the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, does that national of a non-member country enjoy, under Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38 (2), read in conjunction with Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), a right to the same legal treatment as nationals for so long as that right of residence has not been withdrawn, with the result that the Belgian State is precluded from imposing on her a length-of-residence requirement for the grant of guaranteed family benefits when that condition is not imposed on national beneficiaries? |
| --- | --- |

3.

if the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, does that national of a non-member country enjoy, under Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38 (2), read in conjunction with Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), a right to the same legal treatment as nationals for so long as that right of residence has not been withdrawn, with the result that the Belgian State is precluded from imposing on her a length-of-residence requirement for the grant of guaranteed family benefits when that condition is not imposed on national beneficiaries?

| 4. | if the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, does that national of a non-member country, the mother of an EU citizen, benefit, under Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union from the principle of equal treatment, with the result that the Belgian State is precluded from imposing on her a length-of-residence requirement for the grant of guaranteed family benefits for another of her children, who is a national of a non-member country, when that length-of-residence requirement is not imposed in a respect of a child of EU nationality? |
| --- | --- |

4.

if the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, does that national of a non-member country, the mother of an EU citizen, benefit, under Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union from the principle of equal treatment, with the result that the Belgian State is precluded from imposing on her a length-of-residence requirement for the grant of guaranteed family benefits for another of her children, who is a national of a non-member country, when that length-of-residence requirement is not imposed in a respect of a child of EU nationality?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community ...(OJ L 149, p. 2).

(2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Denmark), lodged on 26 January 2012 — L.N.

(Case C-46/12)

2012/C 109/12

Language of the case: Danish

Referring tribunal

Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten (Appeals Tribunal, the Danish Students’ Grants and Loans Scheme)

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.N.

Question referred

Does Article 7(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 24(2), of the Directive on residence) (1) mean that a Member State (host Member State), in the assessment of whether a person must be deemed to be a worker entitled to education assistance, may take account of the fact that the person entered the host Member State for the principal purpose of following a course of study, with the result that the host Member State is not obliged to grant education assistance aid for studies to that person (see aforementioned Article 24(2) of the Directive on residence)?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Marián Baláž

(Case C-60/12)

2012/C 109/13

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Vrchní soud v Praze

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marián Baláž

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ in Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (‘the Framework Decision’) be interpreted as an autonomous concept of European Union law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ in Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (‘the Framework Decision’) be interpreted as an autonomous concept of European Union law?

| 2(a) | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what general defining characteristics must a court of a State which can, on the initiative of the person concerned, hear that person’s case in relation to a decision issued by an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority) have in order to qualify as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision? |
| --- | --- |

2(a)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what general defining characteristics must a court of a State which can, on the initiative of the person concerned, hear that person’s case in relation to a decision issued by an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority) have in order to qualify as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision?

| 2(b) | May an Austrian independent administrative tribunal (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) be regarded as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision? |
| --- | --- |

2(b)

May an Austrian independent administrative tribunal (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) be regarded as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision?

| 2(c) | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision be interpreted by the competent authority of the executing State under the law of the State whose authority issued a decision within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision, or under the law of the State deciding on the recognition and enforcement of such a decision? |
| --- | --- |

2(c)

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision be interpreted by the competent authority of the executing State under the law of the State whose authority issued a decision within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision, or under the law of the State deciding on the recognition and enforcement of such a decision?

| 3. | Is the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’ before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ under Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision maintained even if the person concerned cannot have a case tried before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ directly, but must first contest a decision of an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority), the submission of such a contestation rendering that authority’s decision ineffective and leading to the initiation of an ordinary procedure before the same authority, and only against its decision in that ordinary procedure may an appeal be brought before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’?
  In relation to maintaining the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’, is it necessary to decide questions of whether an appeal heard by a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ is in the nature of an ordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a decision not yet final) or an extraordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a final decision) and whether a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, on the basis of that appeal, has the authority to review the case in its entirety both in fact and in law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’ before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ under Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision maintained even if the person concerned cannot have a case tried before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ directly, but must first contest a decision of an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority), the submission of such a contestation rendering that authority’s decision ineffective and leading to the initiation of an ordinary procedure before the same authority, and only against its decision in that ordinary procedure may an appeal be brought before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’?

In relation to maintaining the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’, is it necessary to decide questions of whether an appeal heard by a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ is in the nature of an ordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a decision not yet final) or an extraordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a final decision) and whether a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, on the basis of that appeal, has the authority to review the case in its entirety both in fact and in law?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin

(Case C-420/08) (1)

2012/C 109/14

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-533/09) (1)

2012/C 109/15

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-516/10) (1)

2012/C 109/16

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-575/10) (1)

2012/C 109/17

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG

(Case C-8/11) (1)

2012/C 109/18

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

---

General Court

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission

(Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor in a market economy test - Application where the State acts as vendor - Determination of the market price)

2012/C 109/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Land Burgenland (Province of Burgenland, Austria), represented by U. Soltész and C. Herbst, lawyers (Case T-268/08); and Republic of Austria, represented by G. Hesse, C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl, M. Fruhmann and J. Bauer, acting as Agents (Case T-281/08)

Defendant: European Commission, represented initially by V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and K. Gross, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria and the Province of Burgenland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria and the Province of Burgenland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-282/08) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor in a market economy test - Application where the State acts as vendor - Determination of the market price)

2012/C 109/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and K. Gross and subsequently V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (L112) and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112)

(Joined Cases T-77/10 and T-78/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark L112 - Earlier French word mark L.114 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Declaration of partial invalidity)

2012/C 109/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Certmedica International GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pfortner, lawyer) (Case T-77/10); and Lehning entreprise (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by P. Demoly, lawyer) (Case T-78/10)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Lehning entreprise (Case T-77/10) and Certmedica International GmbH (Case T-78/10)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lehning entreprise and Certmedica International GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | In Case T-77/10:






  — | annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) in so far as it declares the registration of the mark L112 to be invalid in respect of ‘veterinary preparations’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In Case T-77/10:

—

annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) in so far as it declares the registration of the mark L112 to be invalid in respect of ‘veterinary preparations’;

| — | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| — | orders Certmedica International GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

orders Certmedica International GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs;

| — | orders Lehning entreprise to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders Lehning entreprise to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

| 2. | In Case T-78/10:






  — | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In Case T-78/10:

—

dismisses the action;

| — | orders Lehning entreprise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

orders Lehning entreprise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;

| — | orders Certmedica International to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

orders Certmedica International to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)

(Case T-525/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO - Earlier Community word mark SERVUS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 109/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio (Refrontolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Mannucci and subsequently P. Bullock, Agents)

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG (Linz, Austira) (represented by: C.-R. Haarmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2010 (Case R 1571/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG and Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-305/08) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/08 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 109/23

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Grasso v Commission

(Case T-319/08) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2012/C 109/24

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Salvatore Grasso (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — AJD Tuna v Commission

(Case T-329/08) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2012/C 109/25

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: AJD Tuna Ltd (St Paul's Bay, Malta) (represented by: J. Refalo, R. Mastroianni and M. Annoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | AJD Tuna Ltd is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

AJD Tuna Ltd is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/12

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission

(Case T-330/08) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2012/C 109/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco e C. Snc (Trapani, Italy) and the six other applicants whose names are mentioned in an annex to the order (represented by: A. Clarizia, P. Ziotti, P. De Luca, A. Amatucci and R. Malinconico, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1 and Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco e C. Snc and the six other applicants whose names appear in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco e C. Snc and the six other applicants whose names appear in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/12

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Federcoopesca and Others v Commission

(Case T-366/08) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2012/C 109/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca (Federcoopesca) and eight other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex to the order (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavasola, V. Cannizzaro and G. Micucci, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca (Federcoopesca) and eight other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca (Federcoopesca) and eight other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/12

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — Dagher v Council

(Case T-218/11 R)

(Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Application for interim measures - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 109/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, application for an order that the Council and the Italian Republic issue a visa to the applicant; secondly, application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2005 L 28, p. 32) and Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 28, p. 60); and, thirdly, a claim for damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the application for interim measures.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council

(Case T-572/11 R)

(Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2012/C 109/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures, in particular, application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1) insofar as those texts refer to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission

(Case T-601/11 R)

(Interim measures - State aid - Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2012/C 109/30

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and C. Barslev, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 6499 final of 20 September 2011 on the measure No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

---

Order of the Judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 16 February 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

(Case T-656/11 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

2012/C 109/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Morison Menon Chartered Accountants (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Dubai Office (Dubai); and Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Sharjah Office (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2001 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and, second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity known as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountants’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

---

Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)

(Case T-666/11)

2012/C 109/32

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2011 in Case No R 1137/2010-3, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision annulling her design; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2011 in Case No R 1137/2010-3, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision annulling her design; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design (representation of a puma) registered under No 697016-0001, published on behalf of the applicant in the Community Designs Bulletin of 2 May 2007.

Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the Community design does not satisfy the definition of a design as set out in Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) and also fails to meet the requirements set out in Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002, in addition to other grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 25(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of that regulation.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of invalidity of the design.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by reason of the refusal to take account of the individual character of the design notified by the applicant.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

---

Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-668/11)

2012/C 109/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). (1) That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament. (2)

In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:

| — | a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;

| — | a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and |
| --- | --- |

—

a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and

| — | a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders. |
| --- | --- |

—

a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.

---

(1)  OJ 2006/S 177-187988.

(2)  [2009] ECR II-1403.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/15

---

Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission

(Case T-15/12)

2012/C 109/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Provincie Groningen (Groningen, Netherlands); Provincie Friesland (Leeuwarden, Netherlands); Provincie Drenthe (Assen, Netherlands); Provincie Overijssel (Zwolle, Netherlands); Provincie Gelderland (Arnhem, Netherlands); Provincie Flevoland (Lelystad, Netherlands); Provincie Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands); Provincie Noord-Holland (Haarlem, Netherlands); Provincie Zuid-Holland (The Hague, Netherlands); Provincie Zeeland (Middelburg, Netherlands); Provincie Noord-Brabant (’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands); and Provincie Limburg (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as nature conservation societies are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme, or, in the further alternative, annul that decision in so far as land management organisations are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as nature conservation societies are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme, or, in the further alternative, annul that decision in so far as land management organisations are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU and infringement of European Union law.






  — | Nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No 26 on services of general interest. European Union competition law is therefore inapplicable; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU and infringement of European Union law.

—

Nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No 26 on services of general interest. European Union competition law is therefore inapplicable;

| — | Nature managers, nature conservation societies or land management organisations are wrongly categorised as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Nature managers, nature conservation societies or land management organisations are wrongly categorised as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

| — | The subsidy scheme does not, in view of the conditions associated with that scheme, lead to an economic advantage for the beneficiaries for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

The subsidy scheme does not, in view of the conditions associated with that scheme, lead to an economic advantage for the beneficiaries for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;

| — | The Commission erred in its application of the fourth condition referred to in the judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I 7747; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission erred in its application of the fourth condition referred to in the judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I 7747;

| — | The subsidy scheme does not have the effect of affecting trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

The subsidy scheme does not have the effect of affecting trade between Member States.

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

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/15

---

Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission

(Case T-16/12)

2012/C 109/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), Vereniging It Fryske Gea (Olterterp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Overijssel (Dalfsen, Netherlands); Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands); Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands); Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Wilhelminadorp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (Haaren, Netherlands); Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Lomm, Netherlands); and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (’s-Graveland, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law, which are similar to those put forward in Case T-15/12 Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/16

---

Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK)

(Case T-19/12)

2012/C 109/36

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 (Case No R 2475/2010-1) refusing registration of KFŁT KRAŚNIK as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 (Case No R 2475/2010-1) refusing registration of KFŁT KRAŚNIK as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings;

| — | order the defendant and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘KFŁT KRAŚNIK’ for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No CTM-3415437 and CTM-3415379, for goods in Class 7, and the national (Polish) trade marks No PL-45550, PL-45826 and PL-112347, for goods in Class 7.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) in so far as it was held that the trade marks are similar and that there was a likelihood of confusion, and breach of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/16

---

Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission

(Case T-31/12)

2012/C 109/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Région Poitou-Charentes (Poitiers, France) (represented by: J. Capiaux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the European Commission decision of 18 November 2011 refusing to close the Community initiative programme INTERREG III B ‘Atlantic Area’ 2000/2006 (reference CCI No 2001 RG 16 0 PC 006) adopted by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the European Commission decision of 18 November 2011 refusing to close the Community initiative programme INTERREG III B ‘Atlantic Area’ 2000/2006 (reference CCI No 2001 RG 16 0 PC 006) adopted by the European Commission.

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 the unlawfulness of the Commission decision, in so far as the signatory of the measure was not entitled to a delegated right of signature. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the Commission decision, in so far as the signatory of the measure was not entitled to a delegated right of signature.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging disregard of essential procedural requirements, the Commission not being compliant with the mandatory time-limit imposed by Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 (1) for stating its reasons why the applicant's final report was unsatisfactory. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging disregard of essential procedural requirements, the Commission not being compliant with the mandatory time-limit imposed by Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999 (1) for stating its reasons why the applicant's final report was unsatisfactory.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors of law:






  — | the Commission having alleged that the applicant did not comply with the rules concerning approval of the final report, whereas the rules of the monitoring committee provided for a scheme of implicit approval of that report at the expiry of a six day time-limit; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of law:

—

the Commission having alleged that the applicant did not comply with the rules concerning approval of the final report, whereas the rules of the monitoring committee provided for a scheme of implicit approval of that report at the expiry of a six day time-limit; and

| — | the Commission having stated that the applicant’s report should have been drafted in English, whereas there is no rule requiring that a report be drafted in a language other than that of the managing authority (in this case French) in order to be valid. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission having stated that the applicant’s report should have been drafted in English, whereas there is no rule requiring that a report be drafted in a language other than that of the managing authority (in this case French) in order to be valid.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons for the contested decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power, the Commission having taken into account a ground which by its nature is extraneous to European interests in order to refuse to close the initiative programme in question. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power, the Commission having taken into account a ground which by its nature is extraneous to European interests in order to refuse to close the initiative programme in question.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/17

---

Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

(Case T-32/12)

2012/C 109/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Muslahadin Vardar (Löhne, Germany) (represented by: I. Höfener and M. Boden, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joker, Inc. (Allen, United States)

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 17 November 2011 in case R 475/2011-4, and alter it so that the opposition is rejected and the applicant’s application for registration is granted; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in case R 475/2011-4, and alter it so that the opposition is rejected and the applicant’s application for registration is granted; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘pingulina’, in orange, violet, blue, green, yellow and black, for goods in classes 20, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8402992

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The opposition was based inter alia upon the International trade mark registration No 537386A of the figurative mark ‘PINGU’, in black and white, for goods inter alia in classes 20, 24 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier marks.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/17

---

Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission

(Case T-39/12 P)

2012/C 109/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Roberto Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: S. Woog and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Declare his appeal admissible and well founded, and consequently: |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare his appeal admissible and well founded, and consequently:

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal of the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 by which it dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s action seeking annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused to place him on leave for national service; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal of the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 by which it dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s action seeking annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused to place him on leave for national service;

| — | Grant the applicant the form of order sought by him before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the applicant the form of order sought by him before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and mistaken and inadequate reasoning when the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union examined the plea submitted at first instance alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and mistaken and inadequate reasoning when the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union examined the plea submitted at first instance alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and equality and of the principle of reasonableness, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union did not in this case place any temporal limit on the effects of its interpretative judgment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and equality and of the principle of reasonableness, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union did not in this case place any temporal limit on the effects of its interpretative judgment.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

---

Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case T-40/12)

2012/C 109/40

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and

| — | order EUROPOL to pay the applicants’ entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUROPOL to pay the applicants’ entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU and put forward the following argument, which encompasses three considerations:

| | First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants.

| | Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency. |
| --- | --- |

Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency.

| | Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents. |
| --- | --- |

Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

---

Action brought on 27 January 2012 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Sucesores de Miguel Herreros (L'Wren Scott)

(Case T-41/12)

2012/C 109/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LS Fashion, LLC (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: R. Black and S. Davies, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sucesores de Miguel Herreros, SA (La Orotava, 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 24 November 2011 in case R 1584/2009-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2011 in case R 1584/2009-4;

| — | Annul the decision of the Opposition Division in so far as it upheld the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Opposition Division in so far as it upheld the opposition;

| — | Allow CTM application No 5190368 to proceed for registration in its full extent; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow CTM application No 5190368 to proceed for registration in its full extent; and

| — | Order the Office and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Office and the General Court and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Office and the General Court and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘L’Wren Scott’, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5190368

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark application No 1164120 of the word mark ‘LOREN SCOTT’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and allowed the CTM application to proceed for the remaining non-contested goods of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and Rules 22(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal failed to properly assess the evidence submitted by the opponent as to its genuine use of the earlier mark in light of the requirements imposed by the relevant provisions and by case-law, including the requirements to consider the place, time, extent and nature of use of a mark. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to properly assess the visual, aural and conceptual similarity of the respective marks; and (ii) to properly take into account the appropriate degree of similarity of the respective marks, and properly assess the degree of distinctiveness of the marks, including the likelihood of confusion.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/19

---

Action brought on 27 January 2012 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — equinet Bank (EQUITER)

(Case T-47/12)

2012/C 109/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: equinet Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2011 in case R 2101/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2011 in case R 2101/2010-1;

| — | Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘EQUITER’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 66707749

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1600816 of the word mark ‘EQUINET’, for services in classes 35, 36 and 38; German trade mark registration No 39962727 of the word mark ‘EQUINET’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) in conjunction with Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made a wrong assessment concerning the material submitted in support of the use of the mark, as: (i) there are no sufficient indications on activity, time, place and extent of use of the mark; (ii) there is no sufficient indication concerning the nature of use of the trademark; and (iii) the evidence furnished by the opponent is insufficient to prove that the earlier trade mark was genuinely used in the relevant territory during the period of five years preceding the date of publication of the contested mark.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/19

---

Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament

(Case T-48/12)

2012/C 109/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Euroscript — Polska Sp. z.o.o. (Cracow, Poland) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | First, annul the decision of 9 December 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

First, annul the decision of 9 December 2011;

| — | In the alternative, annul call for tenders No PL/2011/EP; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul call for tenders No PL/2011/EP;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging abuse of power in that the European Parliament did not communicate, or communicated late, the information requested by the applicant following the reallocation of the contract in the context of a procurement procedure concerning the provision of translation services into Polish. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging abuse of power in that the European Parliament did not communicate, or communicated late, the information requested by the applicant following the reallocation of the contract in the context of a procurement procedure concerning the provision of translation services into Polish. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules and principles of the European Union, including the Financial Regulation, (2) and the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (3) the successful tenderer being debarred when it requested the re-evaluation of its tender and the Parliament therefore no longer being entitled to revisit its decision to award the contract to the applicant without either suspending or annulling the call for tenders. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules and principles of the European Union, including the Financial Regulation, (2) and the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (3) the successful tenderer being debarred when it requested the re-evaluation of its tender and the Parliament therefore no longer being entitled to revisit its decision to award the contract to the applicant without either suspending or annulling the call for tenders.

---

(1)  OJ 2011/S 56-090361.

(2)  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).

(3)  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).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/20

---

Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission

(Case T-49/12)

2012/C 109/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lafarge (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet and C. Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Commission decision C(2011) 8890 of 25 November 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case 39520 — Cement and related products; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Commission decision C(2011) 8890 of 25 November 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case 39520 — Cement and related products;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

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 infringement of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) in so far as the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 24(1)(d) thereof by requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) in so far as the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 24(1)(d) thereof by requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission went beyond what was appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued — by adopting a decision requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise — whereas, in view of the extent of the information requested, such confirmation was impossible, and the Commission could have taken more appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s response could provide a reliable basis for assessing whether the undertakings’ conduct was compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission went beyond what was appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued — by adopting a decision requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise — whereas, in view of the extent of the information requested, such confirmation was impossible, and the Commission could have taken more appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s response could provide a reliable basis for assessing whether the undertakings’ conduct was compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, in that the contested decision effectively requires the applicant to withdraw all the reservations qualifying its response, whereas, in view of the complexity of the information requested, it had to weigh a large number of issues. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, in that the contested decision effectively requires the applicant to withdraw all the reservations qualifying its response, whereas, in view of the complexity of the information requested, it had to weigh a large number of issues.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration in that the contested decision was taken without regard being had to the specific aspects of the case raised by the applicant in its response and without the applicant’s being heard first. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration in that the contested decision was taken without regard being had to the specific aspects of the case raised by the applicant in its response and without the applicant’s being heard first.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/21

---

Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)

(Case T-50/12)

2012/C 109/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2011 in case R 2314/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2011 in case R 2314/2010-1;

| — | Order the Defendant and, as appropriate, the Intervener in the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant and, as appropriate, the Intervener in the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRO KIDS COMPANY’, for goods and services in classes 24, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 8200909

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 852751 of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the confronted marks were similar and the likelihood of confusion and/or association could not be excluded.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/21

---

Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T-51/12)

2012/C 109/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojininagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in case R 2312/2010-1, insofar as the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 12 was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in case R 2312/2010-1, insofar as the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 12 was dismissed;

| — | Remit the case back to OHIM with a recommendation by the General Court that it find that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to goods in class 12, namely ‘scooters, parts and fittings for vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Remit the case back to OHIM with a recommendation by the General Court that it find that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to goods in class 12, namely ‘scooters, parts and fittings for vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land’; and

| — | Order the Defendant to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 3, 12, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 1495100

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the CTM registration No 1495100

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods and dismissed the ancillary appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided to revoke the CTM for all goods in class 12 despite having held that there was evidence of genuine use of an identifiable sub-category of goods in class 12. Further, it erred in law in not applying the authority in the case of Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging (C-40/01) to the effect that use in relation to parts preserves a registration for the goods of which those parts are an integral part.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/22

---

Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)

(Case T-54/12)

2012/C 109/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: K2 Sports Europe GmbH (Penzberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Karhu Sport Iberica, SL (Cordoba, 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 29 November 2011 in case R 986/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2011 in case R 986/2010-4;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘SPORT’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7490113

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 302008015437 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; International trade mark registration No 982235 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) did not take into consideration the fact that, as a consequence of the identity in the goods at issue the differences between the marks are attenuated; (ii) made an incorrect assessment of the mark applied for, taking the view that there was no chance that the figurative element might be perceived by the public as a representation of the letter K; (iii) incorrectly presumed that being the word ‘SPORT’ understood in all the relevant territories, it should be omitted in the comparative analysis, (iv) erred in making the comparison of the signs; and (v) there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks even if the word ‘SPORT’ may have a weak distinctive character.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/22

---

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — IRISL Maritime Training Institute and Others v Council

(Case T-56/12)

2012/C 109/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kara Shipping and Chartering GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Kheibar Co. (Tehran, Iran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran), Fairway Shipping Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and IRISL Multimodal Transport Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that in including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

| — | failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

| — | failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so;

| — | failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and

| — | infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/23

---

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-57/12)

2012/C 109/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | 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 four pleas in law, alleging that by including his name in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

| — | failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

| — | failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so;

| — | failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and

| — | infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property, business, and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property, business, and reputation.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/23

---

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Nabipour and Others v Council

(Case T-58/12)

2012/C 109/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ghasem Nabipour (Tehran, Iran), Mansour Eslami (Madliena, Malta), Mohamad Talai (Hamburg, Germany), Mohammad Moghaddami Fard (Tehran), Alireza Ghezelayagh (Singapore, Singapore), Gholam Hossein Golparvar (Tehran), Hassan Jalil Zadeh (Tehran), Mohammad Hadi Pajand (London, the United Kingdom), Ahmad Sarkandi (United Arab Emirates), Seyed Alaeddin Sadat Rasool (Tehran) and Ahmad Tafazoly (Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China) (represented by: S. Kentridge, QC (Queen’s Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;

| — | Declare that a travel ban does not apply to any of them; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that a travel ban does not apply to any of them; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that by including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

| — | failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

| — | failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the conduct of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the conduct of the applicants;

| — | infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation, as well as of private and family life; and |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, and reputation, as well as of private and family life; and

| — | failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/24

---

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-62/12)

2012/C 109/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant refusing (full) access to document 6865/09, containing a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal service concerning the legality of draft amendments to a European Commission proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), pursuant to the said regulation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant refusing (full) access to document 6865/09, containing a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal service concerning the legality of draft amendments to a European Commission proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), pursuant to the said regulation; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.

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 violation of Article 4(2) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would undermine the protection of legal advice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(2) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would undermine the protection of legal advice.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would seriously undermine the Council’s decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would seriously undermine the Council’s decision-making process.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of both Article 4(2) second indent and 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant failed to take account of the overriding public interest in disclosure of the document in question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of both Article 4(2) second indent and 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant failed to take account of the overriding public interest in disclosure of the document in question.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality, as the Council did not properly consider whether fuller access to the document in question could have been provided. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality, as the Council did not properly consider whether fuller access to the document in question could have been provided.

---

(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)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/24

---

Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council

(Case T-66/12)

2012/C 109/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ali Sedghi (Tehran, Iran) and Ahmad Azizi (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; and that the decision to that effect would take immediate effect, without suspension; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; and that the decision to that effect would take immediate effect, without suspension;

| — | Declare inapplicability of Article 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as regards the second applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare inapplicability of Article 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as regards the second applicant;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for their listing; the Council has manifestly erred in assessing that the applicants’ listing is justified; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for their listing; the Council has manifestly erred in assessing that the applicants’ listing is justified;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the contested Decision and Regulation impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ fundamental rights; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Decision and Regulation impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ fundamental rights;

The second applicant relies on two additional pleas in law, alleging that:

| — | the contested Decision and Regulation constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his rights of free movement in the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested Decision and Regulation constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his rights of free movement in the European Union; and

| — | the Council lacked the competence to include the second applicant under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because this is a situation which is purely internal to the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council lacked the competence to include the second applicant under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because this is a situation which is purely internal to the European Union.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/25

---

Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-67/12)

2012/C 109/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sina Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul point 8 of table B of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1) insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point 8 of table B of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1) insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul point 8 of table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 783/2011/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point 8 of table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 783/2011/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and by which the Council maintains the name of the applicant on those lists, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the designation of the applicant on the list breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that by maintaining the applicant’s name on the list, the Council has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons provided by Decision 2010/413/CFSP, which Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends and Regulation 1245/2011 implements, and by virtue of which the applicant remains on the lists; and further to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging






  — | that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

that the designation of the applicant violates the applicant’s property rights and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

(2)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/26

---

Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Hemmati v Council

(Case T-68/12)

2012/C 109/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abdolnaser Hemmati (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul point 7 of table A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1), insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point 7 of table A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) 961/2010 amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation 1245/2011 (1), insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul point 7 of table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul point 7 of table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP amended, as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 961/2010 that Regulation 1245/2011 implements, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 19(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP that Decision 783/2011/CFSP amends, insofar as the applicant is concerned;

| — | Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the letter — decision dated 5 December 2011; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the Council breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons in support of listing the applicant in the contested Regulation 1245/2011 and Decision 2011/783/CFSP; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the Council breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons in support of listing the applicant in the contested Regulation 1245/2011 and Decision 2011/783/CFSP;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that, even if the Court was to admit that the motivation given by the Council is sufficient, the Council committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts, since the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, that Decision 2011/783/CFSP amends, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that, even if the Court was to admit that the motivation given by the Council is sufficient, the Council committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts, since the applicant is not linked to the interests of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the so-called ‘regime’s’ strategic interests, nor its alleged nuclear programme. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP, that Decision 2011/783/CFSP amends, are not met in respect of the applicant, thus the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. Furthermore, the Council also failed to apply the relevant test correctly;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that the designation of the applicant infringes his property rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that the designation of the applicant infringes his property rights and the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

(2)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/26

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council

(Case T-69/12)

2012/C 109/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging






  — | that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/27

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Divandari v Council

(Case T-70/12)

2012/C 109/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and

| — | Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is not chairman of Bank Mellat, as wrongly alleged by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is not chairman of Bank Mellat, as wrongly alleged by the defendant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for Bank Mellat’s designation are not met and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for Bank Mellat’s designation are not met and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of his human and fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of his human and fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-497/10 Divandari Bank v Council is successful, or Bank Mellat succeeds in its application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council, this application must also succeed. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-497/10 Divandari Bank v Council is successful, or Bank Mellat succeeds in its application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council, this application must also succeed.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

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

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/28

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Meskarian v Council

(Case T-71/12)

2012/C 109/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohammed Reza Meskarian (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul paragraph 13 of Table A of the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 13 of Table A of the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant;

| — | Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Declare that the annulment of the contested acts has immediate effect, notwithstanding Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the annulment of the contested acts has immediate effect, notwithstanding Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union lacks competence to impose an asset freeze and travel ban under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’) in a situation which is internal to the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union lacks competence to impose an asset freeze and travel ban under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’) in a situation which is internal to the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human and fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human and fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the defendant in violation of its procedural obligations and the applicant’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the defendant in violation of its procedural obligations and the applicant’s rights of defence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that in so far as either Persia International Bank’s or Bank Mellat’s respective applications for annulment of their respective designations is successful, the applicant’s own designation must be also annulled. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that in so far as either Persia International Bank’s or Bank Mellat’s respective applications for annulment of their respective designations is successful, the applicant’s own designation must be also annulled.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

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

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/28

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-72/12)

2012/C 109/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and

| — | Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council is successful, this application must also succeed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council is successful, this application must also succeed.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

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

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/29

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-73/12)

2012/C 109/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany), Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands), Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France) and Hans Einhell Oesterreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8831, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8825, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8828 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8810, all four decision being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 81, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8831, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8825, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8828 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8810, all four decision being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 81, p. 1);

| — | Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin for the purposes of establishing the revised dumping margin applicable to the imports in question, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the unrelated supplier when calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin for the purposes of establishing the revised dumping margin applicable to the imports in question, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the unrelated supplier when calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the unrelated supplier’s export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the revised dumping margin and the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the unrelated supplier’s export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the revised dumping margin and the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/30

---

Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)

(Case T-77/12)

2012/C 109/60

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wahl GmbH (Unterkirnach, Germany) (represented by: T. Kieser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tenacta Group SpA (Azzano S. Paolo, Italy)

Form of order sought

| — | Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889;

| — | in the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889 in relation to registration of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889 in relation to registration of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 7;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wahl GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘bellissima’ for goods in Classes 7 and 8 (application No 8406704).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tenacta Group SpA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘bellissima IMETEC’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 (Community trade mark No 4534889).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/30

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)

(Case T-78/12)

2012/C 109/61

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in Case No R 2109/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in Case No R 2109/2010-1;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘LIBERTE brunes’ for goods in Classes 25, 30 and 34 (application No 6 462 171)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ (Community trade mark No 1 456 664) and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ (Community trade mark No 2 433 126) for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/31

---

Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Cisco Systems and Messagenet v Commission

(Case T-79/12)

2012/C 109/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cisco Systems, Inc. (San José, United States of America), Messagenet SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and K. Jörgens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision C(2011) 7279 final of the Commission of 7 October 2011 (OJ C 341, 22.11.2011, p. 2) not to oppose the notified concentration between Microsoft Corporation and Skype Sarl and declaring it compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6281) for breach of Articles 2 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EC Merger Regulation) (1) or, alternatively, of Article 296 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision C(2011) 7279 final of the Commission of 7 October 2011 (OJ C 341, 22.11.2011, p. 2) not to oppose the notified concentration between Microsoft Corporation and Skype Sarl and declaring it compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6281) for breach of Articles 2 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EC Merger Regulation) (1) or, alternatively, of Article 296 TFEU;

| — | Order the defendant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the applicants in connection with the present action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the applicants in connection with the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in holding that the merger would not raise any anti-competitive horizontal concerns in the consumer unified communications markets. In this connection, the applicants stress that the merger leads to combined market shares of more than 80 % in the narrowest possible market examined in the decision (video call services to consumers on Windows-based PC). Both the combination of powerful network effects accruing to the largest installed base of users and the merging company’s full control of the Windows Operating System and other adjacent applications will reinforce the dominant position and eliminate any incentive which the merged entity may have to offer interoperability with competing products; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in holding that the merger would not raise any anti-competitive horizontal concerns in the consumer unified communications markets. In this connection, the applicants stress that the merger leads to combined market shares of more than 80 % in the narrowest possible market examined in the decision (video call services to consumers on Windows-based PC). Both the combination of powerful network effects accruing to the largest installed base of users and the merging company’s full control of the Windows Operating System and other adjacent applications will reinforce the dominant position and eliminate any incentive which the merged entity may have to offer interoperability with competing products;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | that the European Commission also committed a manifest error of assessment in holding that the merger undoubtedly did not raise any anti-competitive conglomerate effects in enterprise unified communications markets. In this connection, the applicants stress that given the increasing popularity of consumer unified communications services, enterprise customers wish to connect with customers using the tools of consumer unified communications. By expanding its established base of consumer unified communications customers, the merging company will have both the increased ability and the incentives to deny interoperability with competing enterprise communications products. The foreclosure effects will be reinforced by the pre-existing leading/dominant position already enjoyed by that company in adjacent markets, such as operating systems and enterprise application software products, e.g. Office and Outlook. In particular, the contested decision is inconsistent with the decision-making practice of the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the importance of network effects in IT markets and the need to ensure interoperability with a view to preserving effective consumer choice, when such network effects are in play; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the European Commission also committed a manifest error of assessment in holding that the merger undoubtedly did not raise any anti-competitive conglomerate effects in enterprise unified communications markets. In this connection, the applicants stress that given the increasing popularity of consumer unified communications services, enterprise customers wish to connect with customers using the tools of consumer unified communications. By expanding its established base of consumer unified communications customers, the merging company will have both the increased ability and the incentives to deny interoperability with competing enterprise communications products. The foreclosure effects will be reinforced by the pre-existing leading/dominant position already enjoyed by that company in adjacent markets, such as operating systems and enterprise application software products, e.g. Office and Outlook. In particular, the contested decision is inconsistent with the decision-making practice of the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the importance of network effects in IT markets and the need to ensure interoperability with a view to preserving effective consumer choice, when such network effects are in play;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging on a subsidiary basis






  — | that the European Commission failed to comply with its duty to state sufficient reasons to justify the authorization of the merger in the first phase, without considering that commitments from the parties were necessary. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging on a subsidiary basis

—

that the European Commission failed to comply with its duty to state sufficient reasons to justify the authorization of the merger in the first phase, without considering that commitments from the parties were necessary.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/31

---

Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-82/12)

2012/C 109/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/32

---

Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff)

(Case T-87/12)

2012/C 109/64

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Duff Beer UG (Eschwege, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Los Angeles, United States of America)

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) (OHIM) of 12 December 2011 (Case R 0456/2011-4) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (No B 1 603 771); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 December 2011 (Case R 0456/2011-4) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (No B 1 603 771);

| — | order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, stay the proceedings until the delivery of final decisions on the application for revocation pending before OHIM under the reference number 000005227 C and the nullity of Community trade mark No 001341130 declared by the Court of Commerce of Brussels under the reference numbers 2009/6122 and 2009/6129. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, stay the proceedings until the delivery of final decisions on the application for revocation pending before OHIM under the reference number 000005227 C and the nullity of Community trade mark No 001341130 declared by the Court of Commerce of Brussels under the reference numbers 2009/6122 and 2009/6129.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘Duff’ in the colours black, white and red for goods and services in Classes 32, 35 and 41 (application No 8 351 091).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Duff BEER’ (Community trade mark No 1 341 130) for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part for goods and services in Classes 32 and 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and infringement of rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 due to the Board of Appeal’s incorrect exercise of its discretion as regards the applicant’s application to suspend the appeal proceedings.

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/32

---

Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council

(Case T-88/12)

2012/C 109/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France) and Almet (Satolas-et-Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | principally, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 as being based on inadequate economic findings; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 as being based on inadequate economic findings;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 which collects definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty already collected, in so far as that collection is inconsistent with the principle of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 which collects definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty already collected, in so far as that collection is inconsistent with the principle of legitimate expectations;

| — | in the further alternative, acknowledge the European Union’s non-contractual liability that validates the direct application of a collection which, in view of the subject-matter, ought to have been announced to the economic operators concerned within reasonable periods of time sufficient to enable them to anticipate their economic options with sufficient legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, acknowledge the European Union’s non-contractual liability that validates the direct application of a collection which, in view of the subject-matter, ought to have been announced to the economic operators concerned within reasonable periods of time sufficient to enable them to anticipate their economic options with sufficient legal certainty;

| — | in each case, order the repayment to and/or indemnification of the applicant companies in the following amounts:






  — | damage caused to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 89 402,15; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in each case, order the repayment to and/or indemnification of the applicant companies in the following amounts:

—

damage caused to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 89 402,15;

| — | damage suffered by the company ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 375 493; |
| --- | --- |

—

damage suffered by the company ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 375 493;

| — | damage suffered jointly by the companies CHARRON INOX and ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 58 594, that sum to be divided between them by CHARRON INOX and ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE themselves; |
| --- | --- |

—

damage suffered jointly by the companies CHARRON INOX and ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 58 594, that sum to be divided between them by CHARRON INOX and ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE themselves;

| — | damage to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 57 883,18; |
| --- | --- |

—

damage to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 57 883,18;

| — | damage to the company ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 66 578,14. |
| --- | --- |

—

damage to the company ALMET — LE METAL CENTRE as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 66 578,14.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicants rely in support of their action against the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-445/11 Charron Inox and Almet v Commission, (2) concerning the regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on those imports. (3)

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 336, p. 6).

(2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 18.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 169, p. 1).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/33

---

Action brought on 1 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-96/12)

2012/C 109/66

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to pay the Spanish authorities the outstanding balances within a two-month period from the submission of the documents listed in Article D(2)(d) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/1994; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to pay the Spanish authorities the outstanding balances within a two-month period from the submission of the documents listed in Article D(2)(d) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/1994;

| — | in the alternative, annul the letter of 22 December 2011 containing the Commission's response to the earlier request sent to that institution in relation to the payment of the balance corresponding to the closure procedure of the projects co-financed by the Cohesion Funds, assigned to Spain for the programming period 2000-2006, and order the Commission to proceed with the payment of the outstanding balances referred to; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the letter of 22 December 2011 containing the Commission's response to the earlier request sent to that institution in relation to the payment of the balance corresponding to the closure procedure of the projects co-financed by the Cohesion Funds, assigned to Spain for the programming period 2000-2006, and order the Commission to proceed with the payment of the outstanding balances referred to; and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In these proceedings, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation, which the applicant alleges it to be under, to pay the outstanding balances relating to the closure procedure of the projects co-financed by the Cohesion Funds, assigned to Spain for the programming period 2000-2006.

In the alternative, and if the General Court considers that the letter of 22 December 2011, containing the Commission's response to the Kingdom of Spain's earlier request, puts an end to the Commission's failure to fulfil its obligation, the applicant also seeks the annulment of that letter.

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

| 1. | Infringement of point 5 of Article D of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94, (1) since the Commission failed to pay the balance of the projects referred to in the application within a two-month period, without that time-limit having been interrupted or suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of point 5 of Article D of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94, (1) since the Commission failed to pay the balance of the projects referred to in the application within a two-month period, without that time-limit having been interrupted or suspended.

| 2. | Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the Commission infringed a clear legal principle with specific legal consequences. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the Commission infringed a clear legal principle with specific legal consequences.

| 3. | Infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1386/2002, (2) in that the Commission failed to adopt the corresponding decision within a three-month period from the date of the hearing with the Spanish authorities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1386/2002, (2) in that the Commission failed to adopt the corresponding decision within a three-month period from the date of the hearing with the Spanish authorities.

| 4. | Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 1164/94, since the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers granted to it under that article in the area of financial checks. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 1164/94, since the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers granted to it under that article in the area of financial checks.

| 5. | Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 1386/2002 in that the Commission did not make use of the legal facility provided for it to request that a further check be carried out. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 1386/2002 in that the Commission did not make use of the legal facility provided for it to request that a further check be carried out.

| 6. | Infringement of Article H of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 in that the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in that article without first satisfying the requirements to do so. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Infringement of Article H of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 in that the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in that article without first satisfying the requirements to do so.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 of 29 July 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund and the procedure for making financial corrections (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 5).

---

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/34

---

Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

(Case T-446/09) (1)

2012/C 109/67

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---