# Official Journal C 329/22 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 329 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5722 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 329

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5722 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 329/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 329/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 329/02 | Case C-305/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare | 2 |
| 2014/C 329/03 | Case C-308/14: Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 2 |
| 2014/C 329/04 | Case C-315/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz | 3 |
| 2014/C 329/05 | Case C-332/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2014 — Wolfgang und Dr Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR v Finanzamt Krefeld | 3 |
| 2014/C 329/06 | Case C-345/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014 — SIA Maxima Latvija v Konkurences padome | 4 |
| 2014/C 329/07 | Case C-347/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 July 2014 — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat | 5 |
| 2014/C 329/08 | Case C-355/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Pleven (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Polihim-SS EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Svishtov | 6 |
| 2014/C 329/09 | Case C-356/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve | 7 |
| 2014/C 329/10 | Case C-357/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2014 by Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission | 8 |
| 2014/C 329/11 | Case C-359/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 July 2014 — ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS | 9 |
| 2014/C 329/12 | Case C-363/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union | 10 |
| 2014/C 329/13 | Case C-365/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 10 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 329/14 | Case T-511/10: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Requests for quotations — Refusal of access — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Failure to adapt the claim for annulment — No need to adjudicate) | 12 |
| 2014/C 329/15 | Case T-84/12: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Uspaskich v Parliament (Action for annulment and compensation — Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Re-examination — Decision not to defend immunity — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2014/C 329/16 | Case T-416/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Operation of video lottery terminals — Grant by Greece of an exclusive licence — Decision rejecting a complaint — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility) | 13 |
| 2014/C 329/17 | Case T-172/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 14 |
| 2014/C 329/18 | Case T-173/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — WeserWind v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 14 |
| 2014/C 329/19 | Case T-174/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 15 |
| 2014/C 329/20 | Case T-176/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 15 |
| 2014/C 329/21 | Case T-178/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure into State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 16 |
| 2014/C 329/22 | Case T-179/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 16 |
| 2014/C 329/23 | Case T-183/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedag v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris) | 17 |
| 2014/C 329/24 | Case T-388/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD) | 17 |
| 2014/C 329/25 | Case T-389/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD) | 18 |
| 2014/C 329/26 | Case T-459/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO) | 18 |
| 2014/C 329/27 | Case T-493/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA | 19 |
| 2014/C 329/28 | Case T-498/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission | 20 |
| 2014/C 329/29 | Case T-523/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE) | 21 |
| 2014/C 329/30 | Case T-537/14: Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX) | 22 |
| 2014/C 329/31 | Case T-538/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop) | 22 |
| 2014/C 329/32 | Case T-540/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS) | 23 |
| 2014/C 329/33 | Case T-550/14: Action brought on 23 July 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION) | 24 |
| 2014/C 329/34 | Case T-292/10: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Monty Program v Commission | 24 |
| 2014/C 329/35 | Case T-648/11: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK) | 24 |
| 2014/C 329/36 | Case T-178/12: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Khwanda v Council | 25 |
| 2014/C 329/37 | Case T-344/12: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Virgin Atlantic Airways v Commission | 25 |
| 2014/C 329/38 | Case T-569/12: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Marouf v Council | 25 |
| 2014/C 329/39 | Case T-139/13: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Eltek v OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK) | 25 |
| 2014/C 329/40 | Case T-319/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council | 25 |
| 2014/C 329/41 | Case T-502/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA) | 26 |
| 2014/C 329/42 | Case T-577/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB Amalva (komfovent) | 26 |
| 2014/C 329/43 | Case T-588/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC) | 26 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 329/02

Case C-305/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

2

2014/C 329/03

Case C-308/14: Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

2

2014/C 329/04

Case C-315/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

3

2014/C 329/05

Case C-332/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2014 — Wolfgang und Dr Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR v Finanzamt Krefeld

3

2014/C 329/06

Case C-345/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014 — SIA Maxima Latvija v Konkurences padome

4

2014/C 329/07

Case C-347/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 July 2014 — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat

5

2014/C 329/08

Case C-355/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Pleven (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Polihim-SS EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Svishtov

6

2014/C 329/09

Case C-356/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

7

2014/C 329/10

Case C-357/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2014 by Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

8

2014/C 329/11

Case C-359/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 July 2014 — ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

9

2014/C 329/12

Case C-363/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

10

2014/C 329/13

Case C-365/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

10

General Court

2014/C 329/14

Case T-511/10: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Requests for quotations — Refusal of access — Replacement of the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Failure to adapt the claim for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

12

2014/C 329/15

Case T-84/12: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Uspaskich v Parliament (Action for annulment and compensation — Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Re-examination — Decision not to defend immunity — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2014/C 329/16

Case T-416/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Operation of video lottery terminals — Grant by Greece of an exclusive licence — Decision rejecting a complaint — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

13

2014/C 329/17

Case T-172/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

14

2014/C 329/18

Case T-173/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — WeserWind v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

14

2014/C 329/19

Case T-174/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

15

2014/C 329/20

Case T-176/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

15

2014/C 329/21

Case T-178/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure into State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

16

2014/C 329/22

Case T-179/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

16

2014/C 329/23

Case T-183/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedag v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

17

2014/C 329/24

Case T-388/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

17

2014/C 329/25

Case T-389/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

18

2014/C 329/26

Case T-459/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

18

2014/C 329/27

Case T-493/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA

19

2014/C 329/28

Case T-498/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

20

2014/C 329/29

Case T-523/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)

21

2014/C 329/30

Case T-537/14: Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)

22

2014/C 329/31

Case T-538/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop)

22

2014/C 329/32

Case T-540/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS)

23

2014/C 329/33

Case T-550/14: Action brought on 23 July 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION)

24

2014/C 329/34

Case T-292/10: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Monty Program v Commission

24

2014/C 329/35

Case T-648/11: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)

24

2014/C 329/36

Case T-178/12: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Khwanda v Council

25

2014/C 329/37

Case T-344/12: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Virgin Atlantic Airways v Commission

25

2014/C 329/38

Case T-569/12: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Marouf v Council

25

2014/C 329/39

Case T-139/13: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Eltek v OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)

25

2014/C 329/40

Case T-319/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council

25

2014/C 329/41

Case T-502/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA)

26

2014/C 329/42

Case T-577/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB Amalva (komfovent)

26

2014/C 329/43

Case T-588/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)

26

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/1

---

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

2014/C 329/01

Last publication

OJ C 315, 15.9.2014

Past publications

OJ C 303, 8.9.2014

OJ C 292, 1.9.2014

OJ C 282, 25.8.2014

OJ C 261, 11.8.2014

OJ C 253, 4.8.2014

OJ C 245, 28.7.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

(Case C-305/14)

2014/C 329/02

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sergiu Lucian Băbășan

Respondent: Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

Questions referred

| 1) | Are the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also directly applicable in Romania with respect to EU citizens? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Are the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also directly applicable in Romania with respect to EU citizens?

| 2) | Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings?

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-308/14)

2014/C 329/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, M. Wilderspin, agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the United Kingdom, by the requirement that a claimant for Child Benefit or Child tax Credit have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the United Kingdom, by the requirement that a claimant for Child Benefit or Child tax Credit have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1);

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that in requiring a claimant of Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit to have a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a condition of being treated as resident there, the United Kingdom has imposed a condition that Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not permit.

Alternatively the Commission submits that by imposing a condition of entitlement to social security benefits that is automatically met by its own nationals the United Kingdom has created a situation of direct discrimination against nationals of other Member States and thus breached article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166, p. 1.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

(Case C-315/14)

2014/C 329/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Marchon Germany GmbH

Applicant and respondent: Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

Question referred

Must the first indent of Article 17(2)(a) [of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents] (1) be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision under which ‘new customers’ can also be customers acquired by the commercial agent who have already maintained business relations with the principal for products sold by him from a range of products but not for products whose sole representation the principal has entrusted to the agent?

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2014 — Wolfgang und Dr Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR v Finanzamt Krefeld

(Case C-332/14)

2014/C 329/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Wolfgang und Dr Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Questions referred

| 1. | The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (‘the Sixth Directive’) allows Member States, for the purposes of calculating the proportion of input VAT deductible for a given operation, such as the construction of a mixed-use building, to give precedence, as the key to allocation, to an allocation key other than that based on turnover appearing in Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive, on condition that the method used guarantees a more precise determination of that deductible proportion (judgment in Case C-511/10 BLC Baumarkt [EU:C:2012:689]).






  (a) | At the time of acquisition or construction of a mixed-use building, for the purposes of calculating more precisely the deductible amounts of input tax, must inputs the basis of assessment of which is part of the acquisition or construction costs be attributed initially to the (taxable or exempt) turnover of the building and only the remaining input tax attributed by reference to a floor-area or turnover allocation key? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (‘the Sixth Directive’) allows Member States, for the purposes of calculating the proportion of input VAT deductible for a given operation, such as the construction of a mixed-use building, to give precedence, as the key to allocation, to an allocation key other than that based on turnover appearing in Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive, on condition that the method used guarantees a more precise determination of that deductible proportion (judgment in Case C-511/10 BLC Baumarkt [EU:C:2012:689]).

(a)

At the time of acquisition or construction of a mixed-use building, for the purposes of calculating more precisely the deductible amounts of input tax, must inputs the basis of assessment of which is part of the acquisition or construction costs be attributed initially to the (taxable or exempt) turnover of the building and only the remaining input tax attributed by reference to a floor-area or turnover allocation key?

| (b) | Do the principles established by the Court of Justice in its judgment in BLC Baumarkt and the answer to the foregoing question apply also to amounts of input tax on inputs for the use, conservation or maintenance of a mixed-use building? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Do the principles established by the Court of Justice in its judgment in BLC Baumarkt and the answer to the foregoing question apply also to amounts of input tax on inputs for the use, conservation or maintenance of a mixed-use building?

| 2. | Is Article 20 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment provided for in that provision as regards the initial input tax deduction applies also to circumstances in which a taxable person has attributed input tax arising from the construction of a mixed-use building in accordance with the turnover method provided for in Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive and permitted by national law, and during the adjustment period a Member State subsequently provides that a different allocation key is to take precedence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 20 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment provided for in that provision as regards the initial input tax deduction applies also to circumstances in which a taxable person has attributed input tax arising from the construction of a mixed-use building in accordance with the turnover method provided for in Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive and permitted by national law, and during the adjustment period a Member State subsequently provides that a different allocation key is to take precedence?

| 3. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative: Do the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude the application of Article 20 of the Sixth Directive if, for cases of the type described above, the Member State has neither expressly required input tax to be adjusted nor made any transitional provision, and if the input tax attribution applied by the taxable person in accordance with the turnover method had previously been recognised by the Bundesfinanzhof as being generally appropriate? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative: Do the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude the application of Article 20 of the Sixth Directive if, for cases of the type described above, the Member State has neither expressly required input tax to be adjusted nor made any transitional provision, and if the input tax attribution applied by the taxable person in accordance with the turnover method had previously been recognised by the Bundesfinanzhof as being generally appropriate?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 July 2014 — SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’ v Konkurences padome

(Case C-345/14)

2014/C 329/06

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Maxima Latvija’

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the agreement under consideration in the present case, concluded by a lessor of commercial premises and a retailer (the ‘anchor tenant’), which restricts the lessor’s right to decide individually, without the consent of the anchor tenant, to make other lettings of commercial premises to potential competitors of the ‘anchor tenant’, be regarded as an agreement between undertakings whose object is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, for the purposes of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the agreement under consideration in the present case, concluded by a lessor of commercial premises and a retailer (the ‘anchor tenant’), which restricts the lessor’s right to decide individually, without the consent of the anchor tenant, to make other lettings of commercial premises to potential competitors of the ‘anchor tenant’, be regarded as an agreement between undertakings whose object is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, for the purposes of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 2. | When the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed, must an analysis be made of the structure of the market, and if so, for what purpose? |
| --- | --- |

2.

When the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed, must an analysis be made of the structure of the market, and if so, for what purpose?

| 3. | Is the market power of the parties to the agreement under consideration in the present case, and its possible growth, a factor that must necessarily be taken into account when the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the market power of the parties to the agreement under consideration in the present case, and its possible growth, a factor that must necessarily be taken into account when the compatibility of the agreement with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is assessed?

| 4. | If, in order to discover the nature of the agreement and to ascertain that the elements of a prohibited agreement are present, it is necessary to determine whether the agreement could possibly affect the market, can such potential effects on the market at the same time form a sufficient basis for finding that the agreement corresponds to the definition of a prohibited agreement, without any need for it to be determined whether that agreement actually produced any adverse effects? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If, in order to discover the nature of the agreement and to ascertain that the elements of a prohibited agreement are present, it is necessary to determine whether the agreement could possibly affect the market, can such potential effects on the market at the same time form a sufficient basis for finding that the agreement corresponds to the definition of a prohibited agreement, without any need for it to be determined whether that agreement actually produced any adverse effects?

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 July 2014 — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat

(Case C-347/14)

2014/C 329/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: New Media Online GmbH

Defendant: Bundeskommunikationssenat

Additional party: The Bundeskanzler

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the form and content of a service under examination can be considered to be sufficiently comparable to the form and content of television broadcasting if such services are also offered in television broadcasting which can be regarded as mass media and which are intended for reception by, and could have a clear impact on, a significant proportion of the general public? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the form and content of a service under examination can be considered to be sufficiently comparable to the form and content of television broadcasting if such services are also offered in television broadcasting which can be regarded as mass media and which are intended for reception by, and could have a clear impact on, a significant proportion of the general public?

| 2. | Should Article 1(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that an assessment of the principal purpose of a service offered in the electronic version of a newspaper can be based on a subsection mainly providing a collection of short videos, which in other sections of the website are used only to supplement text articles in the online newspaper? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 1(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that an assessment of the principal purpose of a service offered in the electronic version of a newspaper can be based on a subsection mainly providing a collection of short videos, which in other sections of the website are used only to supplement text articles in the online newspaper?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Pleven (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Polihim-SS EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Svishtov

(Case C-355/14)

2014/C 329/08

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Pleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Polihim-SS EOOD

Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Svishtov

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the term ‘[consumption of] energy products’ in Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (2) to be interpreted — in cases involving energy products which have been released for free circulation and are removed from a tax warehouse of an authorised warehouse keeper, sold in a commercial transaction to a purchaser which possesses neither an authorisation for the production of electricity nor a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and which are then resold by that purchaser to a third party which possesses an authorisation for the production of electricity, a permit from the competent authorities of the Member State for receiving duty-free energy products and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and to which the energy products are delivered directly by the authorised warehouse keeper, without coming under the actual control of the purchaser — as meaning that the energy products are consumed by their direct purchaser, which does not in fact put them to use in a particular operation, or as meaning that they are consumed by the third party, which does in fact put them to use in an operation which it carries out? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the term ‘[consumption of] energy products’ in Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (2) to be interpreted — in cases involving energy products which have been released for free circulation and are removed from a tax warehouse of an authorised warehouse keeper, sold in a commercial transaction to a purchaser which possesses neither an authorisation for the production of electricity nor a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and which are then resold by that purchaser to a third party which possesses an authorisation for the production of electricity, a permit from the competent authorities of the Member State for receiving duty-free energy products and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and to which the energy products are delivered directly by the authorised warehouse keeper, without coming under the actual control of the purchaser — as meaning that the energy products are consumed by their direct purchaser, which does not in fact put them to use in a particular operation, or as meaning that they are consumed by the third party, which does in fact put them to use in an operation which it carries out?

| 2. | Is the term ‘used to produce electricity’ in Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (3) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted — in cases involving energy products which have been released for free circulation and are removed from a tax warehouse of an authorised warehouse keeper, sold in a commercial transaction to a purchaser which possesses neither an authorisation for the production of electricity nor a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and which are then resold by that purchaser to a third party which possesses an authorisation for the production of electricity, a permit from the competent authorities of the Member State for receiving duty-free energy products and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and to which the energy products are delivered directly by the authorised warehouse keeper, without coming under the actual control of the purchaser — as meaning that the energy products are used by the direct purchaser, which does not in fact put them to use in a particular operation for achieving a purpose exempt from excise duty, or as meaning that they are used by the third party, which does in fact put them to use in an operation which it carries out for achieving a purpose exempt from excise duty, namely heating, for example, for the production of electricity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the term ‘used to produce electricity’ in Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (3) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted — in cases involving energy products which have been released for free circulation and are removed from a tax warehouse of an authorised warehouse keeper, sold in a commercial transaction to a purchaser which possesses neither an authorisation for the production of electricity nor a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and which are then resold by that purchaser to a third party which possesses an authorisation for the production of electricity, a permit from the competent authorities of the Member State for receiving duty-free energy products and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and to which the energy products are delivered directly by the authorised warehouse keeper, without coming under the actual control of the purchaser — as meaning that the energy products are used by the direct purchaser, which does not in fact put them to use in a particular operation for achieving a purpose exempt from excise duty, or as meaning that they are used by the third party, which does in fact put them to use in an operation which it carries out for achieving a purpose exempt from excise duty, namely heating, for example, for the production of electricity?

| 3. | Taking into account the principles of the provisions of EU law concerning excise duty, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2008/118 and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, are energy products subject to excise duty and, if so, at what rate — that for motor fuel or that for energy products used for heating purposes — if it is established that the energy products concerned were supplied to an end user which possesses the appropriate authorisations and permits under national law for the production of electricity and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty and which received the goods directly from the authorised warehouse keeper, but which is not the first purchaser of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Taking into account the principles of the provisions of EU law concerning excise duty, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2008/118 and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, are energy products subject to excise duty and, if so, at what rate — that for motor fuel or that for energy products used for heating purposes — if it is established that the energy products concerned were supplied to an end user which possesses the appropriate authorisations and permits under national law for the production of electricity and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty and which received the goods directly from the authorised warehouse keeper, but which is not the first purchaser of the goods?

| 4. | Taking into account the principles of the provisions of EU law concerning excise duty, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2008/118 and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, are energy products subject to excise duty at the rate for motor fuel if it is established that the energy products concerned are consumed or used for a purpose which is exempt from excise duty, namely the production of electricity, by a person which possesses the corresponding authorisations and permits under national law and which received the goods directly from the authorised warehouse keeper, but which is not the first purchaser of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Taking into account the principles of the provisions of EU law concerning excise duty, in particular Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2008/118 and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, are energy products subject to excise duty at the rate for motor fuel if it is established that the energy products concerned are consumed or used for a purpose which is exempt from excise duty, namely the production of electricity, by a person which possesses the corresponding authorisations and permits under national law and which received the goods directly from the authorised warehouse keeper, but which is not the first purchaser of the goods?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

(2)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

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

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

(Case C-356/14)

2014/C 329/09

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

Questions referred

| 1. | In accordance with the provisions of Community law, is a breeding animal of the bovine species, which has been entered, as its parents and grandparents were, in the herd-book of the Holstein-Friesian breed by the official organisation of breeders of the Member State, to be considered pure-bred, regardless of the degree of genetic purity of breed of its ancestors? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In accordance with the provisions of Community law, is a breeding animal of the bovine species, which has been entered, as its parents and grandparents were, in the herd-book of the Holstein-Friesian breed by the official organisation of breeders of the Member State, to be considered pure-bred, regardless of the degree of genetic purity of breed of its ancestors?

| 2. | Must the provision of Decision 2005/379/EC (1) to which reference is made be interpreted as meaning that breeding animals with pedigree certificates that contain the phrase set out in Article 2(1)(a) of that decision are to be considered pure-bred breeding animals and, consequently, give rise to an entitlement to export aids when they are the subject of intra-Community trade? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the provision of Decision 2005/379/EC (1) to which reference is made be interpreted as meaning that breeding animals with pedigree certificates that contain the phrase set out in Article 2(1)(a) of that decision are to be considered pure-bred breeding animals and, consequently, give rise to an entitlement to export aids when they are the subject of intra-Community trade?

| 3. | In view of the foregoing, is it possible to consider that, although an animal holds a pedigree certificate which has been issued by an association of breeders of the Member State and in which the abovementioned phrase is included, such an animal, when it is the subject of intra-Community trade, does not confer on the trader an entitlement to export aids because it is not considered a pure-bred breeding animal despite there being an official document in which the abovementioned phrase is included? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In view of the foregoing, is it possible to consider that, although an animal holds a pedigree certificate which has been issued by an association of breeders of the Member State and in which the abovementioned phrase is included, such an animal, when it is the subject of intra-Community trade, does not confer on the trader an entitlement to export aids because it is not considered a pure-bred breeding animal despite there being an official document in which the abovementioned phrase is included?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 17 May 2005 on pedigree certificates and particulars for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species, their semen, ova and embryos (OJ 2005 L 125, p. 15).

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/8

---

Appeal brought on 21 July 2014 by Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

(Case C-357/14 P)

2014/C 329/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, F.-H. Boret, A.-C. Guyon, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | quash the judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09, in so far as it confirms the Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on State aid C 41/2005 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (1) which declared the PPA as illegal and incompatible State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09, in so far as it confirms the Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on State aid C 41/2005 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (1) which declared the PPA as illegal and incompatible State aid;

| — | give final judgment and annul the Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on State aid C 41/2005 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements in so far as it found that the PPA was illegal and incompatible State aid, or, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment and annul the Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on State aid C 41/2005 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements in so far as it found that the PPA was illegal and incompatible State aid, or, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies on five pleas in law. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the application brought by the Appellant for, in essence, the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements and, in the alternative, the annulment of Articles 2 and 5 of that decision.

By its first plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s assessment in concluding that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) could be classified as new aid without determining beforehand whether the PPA constituted State aid at all within Article 107(1) TFEU.

By its second plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s conclusion that the Commission had not erred in finding that the time of Hungary’s accession to the EU was the appropriate reference period for characterising a measure as State aid in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court errs in law in considering that Annex IV established a rule whereby the relevant period to assess whether a State measure constituted State aid was the time of Hungary’s accession. The meaning of Article IV was distorted since it neither provides nor suggests that the analysis of whether a measure constitutes State aid should be conducted at the date of accession.

By its third plea, the Appellant respectfully notes that the General Court commits errors of law in considering that an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) had been conferred, without taking into account the elements prevailing at the time of the conclusion of the PPA. The General Court errs in concluding that an advantage had been conferred when i) Magyar Villamos Művek (MVM) had acted as a private investor in concluding the PPA as a preparatory measure to facilitate the privatisation of Dunamenti, and (ii) in any event, even if the PPA had conveyed any advantage (which the Appellant rejects), this was repaid through the sale of Dunamenti.

By its fourth plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s assessment of the risk stemming from MVM’s binding minimum off-take obligation. The General Court errs in law in deducing the existence of an advantage from MVM’s binding minimum off-take obligation without proving the existence of a structural risk.

By its fifth plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s confirmation of the methodology adopted by the Commission for the calculation of the quantum of the aid. The General Court commits an error in law in upholding the methodology prescribed in that it defined the amounts to be recovered as a difference in revenue and not as a difference in profits since this difference could lead to challenge the mere existence of a State aid.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, p. 53.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 July 2014 — ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

(Case C-359/14)

2014/C 329/11

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERGO Insurance SE, acting through its Lithuanian branch ERGO Insurance SE

Defendant: If P&C Insurance AS, acting through its branch If P&C Insurance AS

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 [June] 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1), which provides that ‘[w]here the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected’, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, German law has to be applied? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 [June] 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (1), which provides that ‘[w]here the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 2, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected’, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, German law has to be applied?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the principle laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, the law to be applied to the dispute between the insurer of the tractor and the insurer of the trailer must be determined in accordance with the law of the country of the place in which the damage resulting from the road accident occurred? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the principle laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those which have arisen in the present case, the law to be applied to the dispute between the insurer of the tractor and the insurer of the trailer must be determined in accordance with the law of the country of the place in which the damage resulting from the road accident occurred?

---

(1)  OJ L 177, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 199, p. 40.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

---

Action brought on 28 July 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-363/14)

2014/C 329/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/269/EU of 6 May 2014 amending Decision 2009/935/JHA as regards the list of third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/269/EU of 6 May 2014 amending Decision 2009/935/JHA as regards the list of third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements (1)

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the European Parliament raises three pleas in law.

Firstly, the European Parliament contests the use by the Council of an incorrect decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/269/EU. The Parliament deduces therefrom that the Council has committed not only a breach of the Treaties but also a breach of essential procedural requirements.

Secondly, the European Parliament complains of the Council’s use either of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon or of a secondary legal basis, which is unlawful pursuant to the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Lastly, in the view of the Parliament, the list of third States and organisations with which Europol is to conclude agreements is a legislative matter. It should be considered by the EU legislature, since it is an essential element of a regulated area. In consequence, the legal basis and procedure used by the Council are legally incorrect.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 138, p. 104.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-365/14)

2014/C 329/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91.

---

General Court

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

---

Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-511/10) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotations - Refusal of access - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of proceedings - Failure to adapt the claim for annulment - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 329/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, E. Manhaeve and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2010)508190 of 12 August 2010 refusing access to requests for quotations concerning certain framework contracts managed by the Publications Office of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and the European Commission are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and the European Commission are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 15.1.2011.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

---

Order of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-84/12) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive immunity - Re-examination - Decision not to defend immunity - Inadmissibility - Manifest inadmissibility))

2014/C 329/15

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: A. Raišutis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, M. Windisch and L. Mašalaitė-Chouteau, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and V. Balčiūnaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Firstly, an application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to defend the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to reject his application for re-examination of the decision to waive immunity and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Viktor Uspaskich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Viktor Uspaskich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

| 3. | The Republic of Lithuania shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Lithuania shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/13

---

Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission

(Case T-416/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Competition - Operation of video lottery terminals - Grant by Greece of an exclusive licence - Decision rejecting a complaint - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 329/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valetta, Malta) and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R.A. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Striani, acting as Agents, subsequently by F. Ronkes Agerbeek)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013 by which it informed the applicants of its decision to reject their complaint and to close the file regarding Case COMP/39.981 — Stanleybet Group 2/OPAP.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications of the Hellenic Republic and of the Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications of the Hellenic Republic and of the Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Stanley International Betting Ltd shall bear their own costs and pay those borne by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Stanley International Betting Ltd shall bear their own costs and pay those borne by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/14

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission

(Case T-172/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stahlwerk Bous GmbH (Bous, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-172/14 R Stahlwerk Bous v Commission is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-172/14 R Stahlwerk Bous v Commission is set aside.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/14

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — WeserWind v Commission

(Case T-173/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, lawyers)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment in Case T-173/14 R WeserWind v Commission is set aside |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment in Case T-173/14 R WeserWind v Commission is set aside

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission

(Case T-174/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment in Case T-174/14 R Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission is set aside |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment in Case T-174/14 R Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission is set aside

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Georgsmarienhütte v Commission

(Case T-176/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerorgsmarienhütte GmbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment in Case T-176/14 R Gerorgsmarienhütte v Commission is set aside |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment in Case T-176/14 R Gerorgsmarienhütte v Commission is set aside

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/16

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission

(Case T-178/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure into State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH (Mullheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment in Case T-178/14 R Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment in Case T-178/14 R Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission is set aside.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/16

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission

(Case T-179/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schmiedewerke Gröditz (Gröditz, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmidewerke Gröditz is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmidewerke Gröditz is set aside.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/17

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedag v Commission

(Case T-183/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schmiedag GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmiedag v Commission is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmiedag v Commission is set aside.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/17

---

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-388/14)

2014/C 329/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1853/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1853/2013-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  417

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-389/14)

2014/C 329/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1854/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1854/2013-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  441

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

(Case T-459/14)

2014/C 329/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos (Setúbal, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 27 March 2014 in Case R 1554/2013-1, in so far as by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding opposition B 2009291 and refusing, in its entirety, Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511‘LEO’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1554/2013-1, in so far as by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding opposition B 2009291 and refusing, in its entirety, Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511‘LEO’;

| — | order the party or parties who oppose this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties who oppose this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘LEO’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13  511

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘LEO D’HONOR’ for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/19

---

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA

(Case T-493/14)

2014/C 329/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | extend her secondment up to 30 June 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

extend her secondment up to 30 June 2015;

| — | declare unlawful the termination of her secondment agreement, more precisely the EFSA decision ‘Termination of the secondment’ of 16 April 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful the termination of her secondment agreement, more precisely the EFSA decision ‘Termination of the secondment’ of 16 April 2014;

| — | order the defendant not to allow the ‘observer’ position of the seconded national expert on the staff committee to be re-selected; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant not to allow the ‘observer’ position of the seconded national expert on the staff committee to be re-selected;

| — | declare unlawful the six-month suspension of her staff-committee activity; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare unlawful the six-month suspension of her staff-committee activity;

| — | order that she be granted access to all e-mails which were exchanged between the EFSA director and a private-law organisation active in the food sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that she be granted access to all e-mails which were exchanged between the EFSA director and a private-law organisation active in the food sector;

| — | in the alternative, order that that access to documents be granted to a third party, to be determined by the General Court, in order to examine a possible conflict of interests; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order that that access to documents be granted to a third party, to be determined by the General Court, in order to examine a possible conflict of interests;

| — | 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

The applicant relies on the following submissions in support of her action.

The applicant submits that she has a legal entitlement to an extension of her secondment as national expert as a result of the general principle of equality, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the prohibition of arbitrary action and Article 2 TEU.

The applicant complains in this regard that the non-extension of the secondment is based on an erroneous selection decision, or even on no selection decision at all.

The applicant also claims that her suspension from the staff committee is unlawful because no reasons were given, no hearing took place and no written decision was issued.

In addition, the applicant asserts a claim to have access to certain e-mails under Article 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). In this connection, she argues that official e-mails do not fall under the protection of personal data.

---

(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).

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/20

---

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

(Case T-498/14)

2014/C 329/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and R. Geulen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its action.

Right of access to the written correspondence between the European Commission and the undertakings Honeywell and DuPont and automobile manufacturers regarding the new refrigerant R1234yf

| — | The applicant submits that the Commission failed to recognise the applicant’s right of access under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1). According to that provision, documents of the institutions must always be made accessible if they relate to emissions into the environment. The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 contains a statutory presumption that the interest in disclosure of the information takes precedence over the interest of undertakings in ensuring their protection. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant submits that the Commission failed to recognise the applicant’s right of access under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1). According to that provision, documents of the institutions must always be made accessible if they relate to emissions into the environment. The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 contains a statutory presumption that the interest in disclosure of the information takes precedence over the interest of undertakings in ensuring their protection.

| — | The applicant further submits that the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 constitutes an explicit rule for the interpretation of the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2). The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, it argues, modifies what is stated in Regulation No 1049/2001 as soon as documents relate to emissions into the environment. The applicant submits that the documents withheld presumably contain information on the refrigerants R1234yf and R134a, which are harmful to health and to the climate, and that the quantities of poisonous hydrogen fluoride emissions can be deduced from the declarations, assessments and proposals of automobile manufacturers and refrigerant producers with regard to the use of those chemicals. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further submits that the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 constitutes an explicit rule for the interpretation of the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2). The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, it argues, modifies what is stated in Regulation No 1049/2001 as soon as documents relate to emissions into the environment. The applicant submits that the documents withheld presumably contain information on the refrigerants R1234yf and R134a, which are harmful to health and to the climate, and that the quantities of poisonous hydrogen fluoride emissions can be deduced from the declarations, assessments and proposals of automobile manufacturers and refrigerant producers with regard to the use of those chemicals.

| — | In the alternative, the applicant submits that access to the requested documents must itself be granted on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The condition governing the exception set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is, it argues, not satisfied. In addition, there is an overriding interest in access to the documents because the health risks linked to use of the refrigerant are significant. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the applicant submits that access to the requested documents must itself be granted on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The condition governing the exception set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is, it argues, not satisfied. In addition, there is an overriding interest in access to the documents because the health risks linked to use of the refrigerant are significant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(2)  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).

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/21

---

Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)

(Case T-523/14)

2014/C 329/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Squeeze Life, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evolution Fresh, Inc. (San Bernardino, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul and declare inapplicable the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 and, consequently, declare that:






  — | the party that brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013 was Squeeze Life, S.L., and not the applicant for a Community trade mark, Evolution Fresh, Inc.; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul and declare inapplicable the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 and, consequently, declare that:

—

the party that brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013 was Squeeze Life, S.L., and not the applicant for a Community trade mark, Evolution Fresh, Inc.;

| — | as a consequence of the above, declare final the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, and therefore, declare Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ rejected in respect of the goods in Class 32 and, in part, the services in Class 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence of the above, declare final the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, and therefore, declare Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ rejected in respect of the goods in Class 32 and, in part, the services in Class 35;

| — | stay conversion procedure No 8311048, which is pending before the ‘Division of Recordals’ of OHIM, until final judgment is delivered in the present proceedings, and remit the appropriate communication to the ‘Division of Recordals’ in order for it to stay the conversion proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

stay conversion procedure No 8311048, which is pending before the ‘Division of Recordals’ of OHIM, until final judgment is delivered in the present proceedings, and remit the appropriate communication to the ‘Division of Recordals’ in order for it to stay the conversion proceedings;

| — | 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: Evolution Fresh, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘ZUMIT SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 31, 32 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Took note of the withdrawal of the Community trade mark application and closed the appeal and opposition proceedings

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 108 et seq. of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 108 et seq. of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

---

Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)

(Case T-537/14)

2014/C 329/30

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NYX, Los Angeles Inc. (California, United States)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2014 in Case R 1575/2013-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2014 in Case R 1575/2013-5;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: NYX, Los Angeles Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘NYX’ for goods in Class 3 — international registration designating the European Union No 1 1 0 52  316

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘NUXE’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

---

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop)

(Case T-538/14)

2014/C 329/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 1661/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 1661/2013-1;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Multiprop’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 19 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 5 87  219

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/23

---

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS)

(Case T-540/14)

2014/C 329/32

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Oliver Klass (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: U. Bender, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: F. Smit Holding BV (Doetinchem, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Alter the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Cases R 1616/2013-4 and R 1834/2013-4 to the effect that both of the applications for a declaration of invalidity of 31 July 2012 are granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Cases R 1616/2013-4 and R 1834/2013-4 to the effect that both of the applications for a declaration of invalidity of 31 July 2012 are granted;

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word marks ‘PLAYSEAT’ and ‘PLAYSEATS’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade marks No 7 5 95  184 and No 8 8 42  254

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: F. Smit Holding BV

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the applications for a declaration of invalidity were rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeals were dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/24

---

Action brought on 23 July 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION)

(Case T-550/14)

2014/C 329/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 2082/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 2082/2013-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘COMPETITION’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69  171

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/24

---

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Monty Program v Commission

(Case T-292/10) (1)

2014/C 329/34

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)

(Case T-648/11) (1)

2014/C 329/35

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Khwanda v Council

(Case T-178/12) (1)

2014/C 329/36

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Virgin Atlantic Airways v Commission

(Case T-344/12) (1)

2014/C 329/37

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Marouf v Council

(Case T-569/12) (1)

2014/C 329/38

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Eltek v OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)

(Case T-139/13) (1)

2014/C 329/39

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Elmaghraby and El Gazaerly v Council

(Case T-319/13) (1)

2014/C 329/40

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/26

---

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA)

(Case T-502/13) (1)

2014/C 329/41

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/26

---

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)

(Case T-577/13) (1)

2014/C 329/42

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/26

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)

(Case T-588/13) (1)

2014/C 329/43

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---