# Official Journal C 155/11 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 155 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5811 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 155

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5811 May 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2015/C 155/01 | 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

2015/C 155/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2015/C 155/02 | Case C-266/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — L. Kik v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — National of a Member State, in which he resides, employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of another third State — Person initially employed by an undertaking established in the Netherlands and subsequently by an undertaking established in Switzerland — Work performed, in succession, on the continental shelf adjacent to a third State, in international waters and in the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States — Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 — Determination of the legislation applicable) | 2 |
| 2015/C 155/03 | Case C-286/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market — Coordination in the setting of quotation prices — Obligation to state reasons — Belated statement of reasons — Belated submission of evidence — Rights of defence — Principle of equality of arms — Principles governing the establishment of the facts — Distortion of the facts — Assessment of the evidence — Market structure — Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object — Burden of proof — Calculation of the fine — Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account — Sales of the same bananas counted twice) | 3 |
| 2015/C 155/04 | Case C-510/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55/EC — Article 25 — Directive 2009/73/EC — Articles 41 and 54 — Temporal application — Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 — Article 5 — Capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures — Decision of a regulatory authority — Right to bring an action — Action brought by a company holding a natural gas transmission authorisation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection against a decision of a regulatory authority) | 4 |
| 2015/C 155/05 | Case C-533/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Article 4(1) — Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work — Justification — Grounds of general interest — Obligation to review — Scope) | 5 |
| 2015/C 155/06 | Case C-672/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of State aid — Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household — Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee — Article 108(3) TFEU — Measure not previously notified to the European Commission — Unlawfulness) | 5 |
| 2015/C 155/07 | Case C-182/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Likelihood of confusion) | 6 |
| 2015/C 155/08 | Case C-39/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV | 7 |
| 2015/C 155/09 | Case C-40/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw | 7 |
| 2015/C 155/10 | Case C-42/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Home Credit Slovakia a.s. v Klára Bíróová | 8 |
| 2015/C 155/11 | Case C-51/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2015 — Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord v Region Hannover | 10 |
| 2015/C 155/12 | Case C-61/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) | 11 |
| 2015/C 155/13 | Case C-72/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority | 12 |
| 2015/C 155/14 | Case C-73/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu | 14 |
| 2015/C 155/15 | Case C-80/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach | 14 |
| 2015/C 155/16 | Case C-92/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV | 15 |
| 2015/C 155/17 | Case C-125/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union | 15 |
| 2015/C 155/18 | Case C-126/15: Action brought on 12 March 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic | 16 |
| 2015/C 155/19 | Case C-128/15: Action brought on 13 March 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union | 17 |
| 2015/C 155/20 | Case C-139/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Kingdom of Spain v Commission | 18 |
| 2015/C 155/21 | Case C-140/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission | 19 |
| | General Court |
| 2015/C 155/22 | Case T-556/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Slovenská pošta v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Slovakian traditional mail and hybrid mail services markets — Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Exclusive right to distribute hybrid mail — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Definition of the market — Extension of a monopoly — Article 86(2) EC — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations) | 20 |
| 2015/C 155/23 | Case T-297/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services — Classification of a tenderer in second or third position in the cascade procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability) | 21 |
| 2015/C 155/24 | Case T-538/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Belgium v Commission (State aid — Public health — Aid granted to finance screening tests for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Adversely affecting act — Admissibility — Notion of advantage — Notion of selectivity) | 22 |
| 2015/C 155/25 | Case T-563/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Central Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to reputation — Proportionality) | 22 |
| 2015/C 155/26 | Case T-378/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark English pink — Earlier Community word mark PINK LADY and earlier Community figurative mark Pink Lady — Obligation to state reasons — Duty of diligence — Decisions by a Community trade mark court — No res judicata) | 23 |
| 2015/C 155/27 | Case T-456/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Sea Handling v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial access) | 24 |
| 2015/C 155/28 | Case T-551/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED — Earlier national figurative mark VAMED — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2015/C 155/29 | Case T-581/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB — Earlier Community figurative trade marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2015/C 155/30 | Case T-596/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Nael — Earlier Community word mark Mc Neal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2015/C 155/31 | Case T-72/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2015/C 155/32 | Case T-132/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate) | 27 |
| 2015/C 155/33 | Case T-383/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2015 — Europower v Commission (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency) | 28 |
| 2015/C 155/34 | Case T-82/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission | 28 |
| 2015/C 155/35 | Case T-94/15: Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Binca Seafoods v Commission | 30 |
| 2015/C 155/36 | Case T-99/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA) | 31 |
| 2015/C 155/37 | Case T-100/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission | 31 |
| 2015/C 155/38 | Case T-104/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Militos Symvouleftiki/Commission | 32 |
| 2015/C 155/39 | Case T-113/15: Action brought on 4 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission | 33 |
| 2015/C 155/40 | Case T-126/15: Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco) | 34 |
| 2015/C 155/41 | Case T-129/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY) | 35 |
| 2015/C 155/42 | Case T-130/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE TO PAY) | 35 |
| 2015/C 155/43 | Case T-135/15: Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission | 36 |
| 2015/C 155/44 | Case T-594/13: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD) | 37 |
| 2015/C 155/45 | Case T-598/13: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD) | 38 |
| 2015/C 155/46 | Case T-260/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission | 38 |
| 2015/C 155/47 | Case T-263/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission | 38 |
| 2015/C 155/48 | Case T-271/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Styron Deutschland v Commission | 38 |
| 2015/C 155/49 | Case T-274/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission | 38 |
| 2015/C 155/50 | Case T-291/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — egeplast international v Commission | 39 |
| 2015/C 155/51 | Case T-302/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Buderus Guss v Commission | 39 |
| 2015/C 155/52 | Case T-303/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polyblend v Commission | 39 |
| 2015/C 155/53 | Case T-304/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission | 39 |
| 2015/C 155/54 | Case T-306/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polymer-Chemie v Commission | 39 |
| 2015/C 155/55 | Case T-307/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — TechnoCompound v Commission | 40 |
| 2015/C 155/56 | Case T-308/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission | 40 |
| 2015/C 155/57 | Case T-309/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission | 40 |
| 2015/C 155/58 | Case T-310/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission | 40 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2015/C 155/59 | Case F-124/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Action for annulment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Internal Rules for the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Manifest errors of assessment — None — Role and powers of the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace — Option for an official to approach the Committee — Action for damages) | 41 |
| 2015/C 155/60 | Case F-6/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff — Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff — Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements) | 41 |
| 2015/C 155/61 | Case F-26/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CN v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment) | 42 |
| 2015/C 155/62 | Case F-38/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Coedo Suárez v Council (Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary action — Revocation and reduction of the invalidity allowance — Proportionality of the penalty — Manifest error of assessment — Concept of conduct of the official throughout his career — Adhering to working hours) | 43 |
| 2015/C 155/63 | Case F-41/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of powers — Psychological harassment — Decision to award one merit point) | 43 |
| 2015/C 155/64 | Case F-143/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Singou v Council (Civil Service — Contract staff — Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment — Non-renewal of contract — No claim — Manifestly inadmissible) | 44 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2015/C 155/02

Case C-266/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — L. Kik v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — National of a Member State, in which he resides, employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of another third State — Person initially employed by an undertaking established in the Netherlands and subsequently by an undertaking established in Switzerland — Work performed, in succession, on the continental shelf adjacent to a third State, in international waters and in the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States — Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 — Determination of the legislation applicable)

2

2015/C 155/03

Case C-286/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market — Coordination in the setting of quotation prices — Obligation to state reasons — Belated statement of reasons — Belated submission of evidence — Rights of defence — Principle of equality of arms — Principles governing the establishment of the facts — Distortion of the facts — Assessment of the evidence — Market structure — Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object — Burden of proof — Calculation of the fine — Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account — Sales of the same bananas counted twice)

3

2015/C 155/04

Case C-510/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55/EC — Article 25 — Directive 2009/73/EC — Articles 41 and 54 — Temporal application — Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 — Article 5 — Capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures — Decision of a regulatory authority — Right to bring an action — Action brought by a company holding a natural gas transmission authorisation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection against a decision of a regulatory authority)

4

2015/C 155/05

Case C-533/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Article 4(1) — Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work — Justification — Grounds of general interest — Obligation to review — Scope)

5

2015/C 155/06

Case C-672/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of State aid — Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household — Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee — Article 108(3) TFEU — Measure not previously notified to the European Commission — Unlawfulness)

5

2015/C 155/07

Case C-182/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Likelihood of confusion)

6

2015/C 155/08

Case C-39/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV

7

2015/C 155/09

Case C-40/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

7

2015/C 155/10

Case C-42/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Home Credit Slovakia a.s. v Klára Bíróová

8

2015/C 155/11

Case C-51/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2015 — Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord v Region Hannover

10

2015/C 155/12

Case C-61/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

11

2015/C 155/13

Case C-72/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

12

2015/C 155/14

Case C-73/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

14

2015/C 155/15

Case C-80/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

14

2015/C 155/16

Case C-92/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV

15

2015/C 155/17

Case C-125/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

15

2015/C 155/18

Case C-126/15: Action brought on 12 March 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

16

2015/C 155/19

Case C-128/15: Action brought on 13 March 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

17

2015/C 155/20

Case C-139/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Kingdom of Spain v Commission

18

2015/C 155/21

Case C-140/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission

19

General Court

2015/C 155/22

Case T-556/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Slovenská pošta v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Slovakian traditional mail and hybrid mail services markets — Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Exclusive right to distribute hybrid mail — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Definition of the market — Extension of a monopoly — Article 86(2) EC — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

20

2015/C 155/23

Case T-297/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services — Classification of a tenderer in second or third position in the cascade procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

21

2015/C 155/24

Case T-538/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Belgium v Commission (State aid — Public health — Aid granted to finance screening tests for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Adversely affecting act — Admissibility — Notion of advantage — Notion of selectivity)

22

2015/C 155/25

Case T-563/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Central Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to reputation — Proportionality)

22

2015/C 155/26

Case T-378/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark English pink — Earlier Community word mark PINK LADY and earlier Community figurative mark Pink Lady — Obligation to state reasons — Duty of diligence — Decisions by a Community trade mark court — No res judicata)

23

2015/C 155/27

Case T-456/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Sea Handling v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial access)

24

2015/C 155/28

Case T-551/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED — Earlier national figurative mark VAMED — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

25

2015/C 155/29

Case T-581/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB — Earlier Community figurative trade marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

25

2015/C 155/30

Case T-596/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Nael — Earlier Community word mark Mc Neal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

26

2015/C 155/31

Case T-72/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

27

2015/C 155/32

Case T-132/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

27

2015/C 155/33

Case T-383/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2015 — Europower v Commission (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency)

28

2015/C 155/34

Case T-82/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission

28

2015/C 155/35

Case T-94/15: Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Binca Seafoods v Commission

30

2015/C 155/36

Case T-99/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

31

2015/C 155/37

Case T-100/15: Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission

31

2015/C 155/38

Case T-104/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Militos Symvouleftiki/Commission

32

2015/C 155/39

Case T-113/15: Action brought on 4 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission

33

2015/C 155/40

Case T-126/15: Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)

34

2015/C 155/41

Case T-129/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

35

2015/C 155/42

Case T-130/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE TO PAY)

35

2015/C 155/43

Case T-135/15: Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission

36

2015/C 155/44

Case T-594/13: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

37

2015/C 155/45

Case T-598/13: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

38

2015/C 155/46

Case T-260/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission

38

2015/C 155/47

Case T-263/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission

38

2015/C 155/48

Case T-271/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Styron Deutschland v Commission

38

2015/C 155/49

Case T-274/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission

38

2015/C 155/50

Case T-291/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — egeplast international v Commission

39

2015/C 155/51

Case T-302/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Buderus Guss v Commission

39

2015/C 155/52

Case T-303/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polyblend v Commission

39

2015/C 155/53

Case T-304/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission

39

2015/C 155/54

Case T-306/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polymer-Chemie v Commission

39

2015/C 155/55

Case T-307/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — TechnoCompound v Commission

40

2015/C 155/56

Case T-308/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission

40

2015/C 155/57

Case T-309/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission

40

2015/C 155/58

Case T-310/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission

40

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2015/C 155/59

Case F-124/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Action for annulment — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Internal Rules for the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Manifest errors of assessment — None — Role and powers of the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace — Option for an official to approach the Committee — Action for damages)

41

2015/C 155/60

Case F-6/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff — Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff — Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements)

41

2015/C 155/61

Case F-26/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CN v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment)

42

2015/C 155/62

Case F-38/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Coedo Suárez v Council (Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary action — Revocation and reduction of the invalidity allowance — Proportionality of the penalty — Manifest error of assessment — Concept of conduct of the official throughout his career — Adhering to working hours)

43

2015/C 155/63

Case F-41/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of powers — Psychological harassment — Decision to award one merit point)

43

2015/C 155/64

Case F-143/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Singou v Council (Civil Service — Contract staff — Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment — Non-renewal of contract — No claim — Manifestly inadmissible)

44

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/1

---

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

(2015/C 155/01)

Last publication

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015

Past publications

OJ C 138, 27.4.2015

OJ C 127, 20.4.2015

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015

OJ C 107, 30.3.2015

OJ C 96, 23.3.2015

OJ C 89, 16.3.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — L. Kik v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

(Case C-266/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - National of a Member State, in which he resides, employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of another third State - Person initially employed by an undertaking established in the Netherlands and subsequently by an undertaking established in Switzerland - Work performed, in succession, on the continental shelf adjacent to a third State, in international waters and in the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States - Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 - Determination of the legislation applicable))

(2015/C 155/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: L. Kik

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, must be interpreted to the effect that the persons covered by it include an employed person who, like Mr Kik, is a national of a Member State, in which he resides and in which his income is subject to tax, is employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of a third State and operating in various parts of the world, in particular above the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States, was previously employed by an undertaking established in his Member State of residence, changes employer and thereafter is employed by an undertaking established in Switzerland, whilst continuing to reside in the same Member State and to sail on the same vessel. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, must be interpreted to the effect that the persons covered by it include an employed person who, like Mr Kik, is a national of a Member State, in which he resides and in which his income is subject to tax, is employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of a third State and operating in various parts of the world, in particular above the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States, was previously employed by an undertaking established in his Member State of residence, changes employer and thereafter is employed by an undertaking established in Switzerland, whilst continuing to reside in the same Member State and to sail on the same vessel.

| 2. | The provisions determining the national legislation applicable, which are contained in Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State, or of the Swiss Confederation (a State treated as a Member State for the purposes of applying the regulation), who is employed on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State and carries out his activities outside the territory of the European Union — including above the continental shelf of a Member State — but who is employed by an undertaking established in the Swiss Confederation, is subject to the legislation of the State in which his employer is established. However, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, if, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71, that legislation entails him being insured under a voluntary insurance scheme or not being insured under any social security scheme, that national will be subject to the legislation of his Member State of residence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions determining the national legislation applicable, which are contained in Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State, or of the Swiss Confederation (a State treated as a Member State for the purposes of applying the regulation), who is employed on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State and carries out his activities outside the territory of the European Union — including above the continental shelf of a Member State — but who is employed by an undertaking established in the Swiss Confederation, is subject to the legislation of the State in which his employer is established. However, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, if, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71, that legislation entails him being insured under a voluntary insurance scheme or not being insured under any social security scheme, that national will be subject to the legislation of his Member State of residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG v European Commission

(Case C-286/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market - Coordination in the setting of quotation prices - Obligation to state reasons - Belated statement of reasons - Belated submission of evidence - Rights of defence - Principle of equality of arms - Principles governing the establishment of the facts - Distortion of the facts - Assessment of the evidence - Market structure - Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object - Burden of proof - Calculation of the fine - Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account - Sales of the same bananas counted twice))

(2015/C 155/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Dole Food Company, Inc., and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG, to bear the costs jointly and severally. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Dole Food Company, Inc., and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG, to bear the costs jointly and severally.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

(Case C-510/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2003/55/EC - Article 25 - Directive 2009/73/EC - Articles 41 and 54 - Temporal application - Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 - Article 5 - Capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures - Decision of a regulatory authority - Right to bring an action - Action brought by a company holding a natural gas transmission authorisation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection against a decision of a regulatory authority))

(2015/C 155/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt

Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, the period allowed for whose transposition expired on 3 March 2011 and, in particular, the new provisions introduced in Article 41(17) thereof, must be interpreted as not applying to an action against a decision of a regulatory authority, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted before the expiry of that period allowed for transposition and which was still pending on that date. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, the period allowed for whose transposition expired on 3 March 2011 and, in particular, the new provisions introduced in Article 41(17) thereof, must be interpreted as not applying to an action against a decision of a regulatory authority, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted before the expiry of that period allowed for transposition and which was still pending on that date.

| 2) | Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks, read in conjunction with the Annex to that regulation, and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation concerning the exercise of rights of action before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of acts of a regulatory authority, which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, does not make it possible to confer on an operator, such as E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt, locus standi for the purpose of bringing an action against a decision of that authority relating to the gas network code. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks, read in conjunction with the Annex to that regulation, and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation concerning the exercise of rights of action before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of acts of a regulatory authority, which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, does not make it possible to confer on an operator, such as E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt, locus standi for the purpose of bringing an action against a decision of that authority relating to the gas network code.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

(Case C-533/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 4(1) - Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work - Justification - Grounds of general interest - Obligation to review - Scope))

(2015/C 155/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore, |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore,

| — | the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1). |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1).

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

(Case C-672/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household - Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee - Article 108(3) TFEU - Measure not previously notified to the European Commission - Unlawfulness))

(2015/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Bank Nyrt

Defendants: Magyar Állam, Magyar Államkincstár

Operative part of the judgment

The guarantee provided by the Hungarian State under Paragraph 25(1) and (2) of Government Decree No 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 concerning aid intended to facilitate access to housing, granted exclusively to credit institutions prima facie constitutes ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However, it is for the referring court to ascertain more specifically the selective nature of such a guarantee by determining, in particular, whether, following the amendment of the Decree of 2001 which is supposed to have taken place in 2008, that guarantee may be granted to economic operators other than credit institutions and, in the affirmative, whether that fact may call into question the selective nature of that guarantee.

If the referring court classifies the State guarantee at issue in the main proceedings as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, such a guarantee must be regarded as new aid and is, on that ground, subject to the obligation of prior notification to the European Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU. It is for the referring court to verify whether the Member State concerned has complied with that obligation and, if that is not the case, to declare that guarantee unlawful.

The beneficiaries of a State guarantee, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, granted without regard for Article 108(3) TFEU and, therefore, unlawful, do not have any remedies available in accordance with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-182/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 155/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Sets aside paragraph 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (T-604/11 and T-292/12, EU:T:2014:56); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside paragraph 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (T-604/11 and T-292/12, EU:T:2014:56);

| 2) | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3) | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV

(Case C-39/15)

(2015/C 155/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hartmut Frenzel

Defendant: Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 26 February 2015.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

(Case C-40/15)

(2015/C 155/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Respondent: BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that services such as those in the present case, which are supplied on behalf of an insurance undertaking by a third party — in the name and on behalf of the insurer — which has no legal relationship with the insured person, are covered by the exemption referred to in that provision?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Home Credit Slovakia a.s. v Klára Bíróová

(Case C-42/15)

(2015/C 155/10)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Dunajská Streda

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

Defendant: Klára Bíróová

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concepts of ‘on paper’ and ‘another durable medium’ in Article 10(1) (in conjunction with Article 3(m)) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) be interpreted as extending to:






  — | not only the text (physical, ‘hard copy’) of the document signed by the parties to the contract, which will contain the elements (information) required in Article 10(2)(a) to (v) of Directive 2008/48, but also |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must the concepts of ‘on paper’ and ‘another durable medium’ in Article 10(1) (in conjunction with Article 3(m)) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) be interpreted as extending to:

—

not only the text (physical, ‘hard copy’) of the document signed by the parties to the contract, which will contain the elements (information) required in Article 10(2)(a) to (v) of Directive 2008/48, but also

| — | any other document to which that text refers and which under national law is a component of the contractual agreement (for instance, on ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor), even if such a document does not itself fulfil the requirement of being in ‘written form’ within the meaning of national law (for example, because it has not been signed by the parties to the contract)? |
| --- | --- |

—

any other document to which that text refers and which under national law is a component of the contractual agreement (for instance, on ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor), even if such a document does not itself fulfil the requirement of being in ‘written form’ within the meaning of national law (for example, because it has not been signed by the parties to the contract)?

| 2. | Following the answer to Question 1:
  Must Article 10(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the relevant field, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice which:






  — | requires that all the elements of the contract mentioned in Article 10(2)(a) to (v) be contained in one document which will fulfil the requirement of ‘written form’ in accordance with the law of the relevant Member State (that is, in principle in a document signed by the parties to the contract), and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Following the answer to Question 1:

Must Article 10(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the relevant field, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice which:

—

requires that all the elements of the contract mentioned in Article 10(2)(a) to (v) be contained in one document which will fulfil the requirement of ‘written form’ in accordance with the law of the relevant Member State (that is, in principle in a document signed by the parties to the contract), and

| — | does not attribute full legal effects to a consumer credit agreement, merely because some of the above elements are not contained in such a signed document, even if those elements (or part of them) are contained in a separate document (for instance, ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor), where (i) the written agreement itself refers to that document, (ii) the conditions for the incorporation of that document as a component of the agreement in accordance with national law are fulfilled, and (iii) the consumer credit agreement thus concluded would as a whole comply with the requirement of conclusion on ‘another durable medium’ mentioned in Article 10(1) of Directive 2008/48? |
| --- | --- |

—

does not attribute full legal effects to a consumer credit agreement, merely because some of the above elements are not contained in such a signed document, even if those elements (or part of them) are contained in a separate document (for instance, ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor), where (i) the written agreement itself refers to that document, (ii) the conditions for the incorporation of that document as a component of the agreement in accordance with national law are fulfilled, and (iii) the consumer credit agreement thus concluded would as a whole comply with the requirement of conclusion on ‘another durable medium’ mentioned in Article 10(1) of Directive 2008/48?

| 3. | Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’)






  — | must be individualised in the agreement to show the terms of the specific agreement in question (in principle, by stating precise data (day, month, year) of the dates on which the individual instalments are due), or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’)

—

must be individualised in the agreement to show the terms of the specific agreement in question (in principle, by stating precise data (day, month, year) of the dates on which the individual instalments are due), or

| — | is it sufficient if it is contained in the agreement by means of a general reference to objectively ascertainable parameters from which it is possible to derive it (for example, by the clause ‘monthly instalments are due at the latest by the 15th day of each calendar month’, ‘the first instalment is due one month from signature of the agreement and each further instalment is always due one month from the payment of the previous instalment’ or by another similar method)? |
| --- | --- |

—

is it sufficient if it is contained in the agreement by means of a general reference to objectively ascertainable parameters from which it is possible to derive it (for example, by the clause ‘monthly instalments are due at the latest by the 15th day of each calendar month’, ‘the first instalment is due one month from signature of the agreement and each further instalment is always due one month from the payment of the previous instalment’ or by another similar method)?

| 4. | If the interpretation in the second indent of Question 3 is correct:
  Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’) may also be contained in a separate document to which the agreement complying with the requirement of being on paper (within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the directive) refers, but which does not itself have to fulfil that requirement (that is, in principle it does not have to be signed by the parties to the contract; it may, for example, be ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the interpretation in the second indent of Question 3 is correct:

Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’) may also be contained in a separate document to which the agreement complying with the requirement of being on paper (within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the directive) refers, but which does not itself have to fulfil that requirement (that is, in principle it does not have to be signed by the parties to the contract; it may, for example, be ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor)?

| 5. | Must Article 10(2)(i) in conjunction with (h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | a credit agreement for a fixed duration, where the capital of the loan is repaid/amortised by individual instalments, does not have to contain, at the time of its conclusion, a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table does not have to be a component of the agreement), and that information may instead be contained in a schedule of instalments/amortisation table which the creditor provides to the debtor on request, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 10(2)(i) in conjunction with (h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that:

—

a credit agreement for a fixed duration, where the capital of the loan is repaid/amortised by individual instalments, does not have to contain, at the time of its conclusion, a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table does not have to be a component of the agreement), and that information may instead be contained in a schedule of instalments/amortisation table which the creditor provides to the debtor on request, or

| — | Article 10(2)(h) guarantees the debtor the additional right to demand a statement of the amortisation table as at a certain specific date during the currency of the credit agreement, but that right does not relieve the parties to the contract of the obligation that the division of the individual instalments scheduled (payable in accordance with the credit agreement during its currency) into repayment of capital and payment of current interest and charges is already contained in the agreement itself, by a method individualised for the specific agreement concerned? |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 10(2)(h) guarantees the debtor the additional right to demand a statement of the amortisation table as at a certain specific date during the currency of the credit agreement, but that right does not relieve the parties to the contract of the obligation that the division of the individual instalments scheduled (payable in accordance with the credit agreement during its currency) into repayment of capital and payment of current interest and charges is already contained in the agreement itself, by a method individualised for the specific agreement concerned?

| 6. | If the interpretation in the first indent of Question 5 is correct:
  Does that question fall within the field of full harmonisation aimed at by Directive 2008/48, so that a Member State, in accordance with Article 22(1), may not require a credit agreement to contain a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table must be a component of the agreement)? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the interpretation in the first indent of Question 5 is correct:

Does that question fall within the field of full harmonisation aimed at by Directive 2008/48, so that a Member State, in accordance with Article 22(1), may not require a credit agreement to contain a precise definition of what proportion of each individual instalment is used to repay capital and what proportion of it pays current interest and charges (that is, a precise schedule of instalments/amortisation table must be a component of the agreement)?

| 7. | Must the provisions of Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the field concerned, or Article 23 of the directive, in accordance with which penalties must be proportionate, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which the absence of most of the elements of a credit agreement required by Article 10(2) of the directive has the consequence that the credit granted is regarded as interest-free and free of charges, so that the debtor is obliged to repay the creditor solely the capital sum which he received under the agreement? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Must the provisions of Article 1 of Directive 2008/48, in accordance with which the directive aims at full harmonisation in the field concerned, or Article 23 of the directive, in accordance with which penalties must be proportionate, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which the absence of most of the elements of a credit agreement required by Article 10(2) of the directive has the consequence that the credit granted is regarded as interest-free and free of charges, so that the debtor is obliged to repay the creditor solely the capital sum which he received under the agreement?

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2015 — Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord v Region Hannover

(Case C-51/15)

(2015/C 155/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Celle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord

Defendant and respondent: Region Hannover

Intervener: Zweckverband Abfallwirtschaft Region Hannover

Questions referred

| 1. | Does an agreement between two regional authorities — on the basis of which the regional authorities form, by constituent statutes, a common special-purpose association with separate legal personality, which from that point on carries out, under its own responsibility, certain duties which hitherto were incumbent on the regional authorities concerned — constitute a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) in the case where that transfer of duties concerns services within the meaning of that directive and is effected for consideration, the special-purpose association carries out activities going beyond the ambit of the exercise of duties previously incumbent on the regional authorities concerned and the transfer of duties does not belong to ‘the two types of contracts’ which, although entered into by public entities, do not, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (most recently, judgment in Piepenbrock, C-386/11, (2) paragraph 33 et seq.), come within the scope of European Union public procurement law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does an agreement between two regional authorities — on the basis of which the regional authorities form, by constituent statutes, a common special-purpose association with separate legal personality, which from that point on carries out, under its own responsibility, certain duties which hitherto were incumbent on the regional authorities concerned — constitute a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) in the case where that transfer of duties concerns services within the meaning of that directive and is effected for consideration, the special-purpose association carries out activities going beyond the ambit of the exercise of duties previously incumbent on the regional authorities concerned and the transfer of duties does not belong to ‘the two types of contracts’ which, although entered into by public entities, do not, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (most recently, judgment in Piepenbrock, C-386/11, (2) paragraph 33 et seq.), come within the scope of European Union public procurement law?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does the question whether the creation of a special-purpose association and the related transfer of duties to that association exceptionally does not come within the scope of European Union public procurement law depend on the principles which the Court of Justice has developed with regard to contracts concluded by a public entity with a person legally distinct from that entity — principles in accordance with which an application of European Union public procurement law is excluded — in the case where, at the same time, that entity exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and where that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the entity or with the entities which control it (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgment in Teckal, C-107/98, (3) paragraph 50), or, by contrast, do the principles which the Court of Justice has developed concerning contracts which establish cooperation between public entities with the aim of ensuring that a public task that they all have to perform is carried out apply (in that respect, judgment in Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others, C-159/11, (4) paragraphs 34 and 35)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does the question whether the creation of a special-purpose association and the related transfer of duties to that association exceptionally does not come within the scope of European Union public procurement law depend on the principles which the Court of Justice has developed with regard to contracts concluded by a public entity with a person legally distinct from that entity — principles in accordance with which an application of European Union public procurement law is excluded — in the case where, at the same time, that entity exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and where that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the entity or with the entities which control it (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgment in Teckal, C-107/98, (3) paragraph 50), or, by contrast, do the principles which the Court of Justice has developed concerning contracts which establish cooperation between public entities with the aim of ensuring that a public task that they all have to perform is carried out apply (in that respect, judgment in Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others, C-159/11, (4) paragraphs 34 and 35)?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

(2)  ECLI:EU:C:2013:385.

(3)  ECLI:EU:C:1999:562.

(4)  ECLI:EU:C:2012:817.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Case C-61/15 P)

(2015/C 155/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Form of order sought

| 1. | The appellant claims that the Court should:






  — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and annul the respondent’s decision of 13 January 2012 notified to the appellant rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and annul the respondent’s decision of 13 January 2012 notified to the appellant rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034);

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and order the respondent to pay the appellant damages for the loss suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent’s decision to reject the appellant’s application. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and order the respondent to pay the appellant damages for the loss suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent’s decision to reject the appellant’s application.

| 2. | In the alternative,






  — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision in so far as the decision of the respondent was upheld; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In the alternative,

—

set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision in so far as the decision of the respondent was upheld;

| — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court in so far as it upheld the Board of Appeal of the EASA’s decision of 17 December 2012 in Case AP/01/2012, which was notified to the appellant on 27 December 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court in so far as it upheld the Board of Appeal of the EASA’s decision of 17 December 2012 in Case AP/01/2012, which was notified to the appellant on 27 December 2012;

| — | set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision of the Board of Appeal of the respondent in so far as:






  — | the latter was upheld, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision of the Board of Appeal of the respondent in so far as:

—

the latter was upheld,

| — | the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

—

the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings,

and grant the applications of the applicant and appellant introduced at first instance.

| 3. | In the further alternative, set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the further alternative, set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court.

| 4. | Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in re-interpreting the applicant’s action for annulment to the extent that it considered it as solely directed against the Board of Appeal’s decision and thereby infringed Article 50 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008.

To the extent that in explaining the facts of the case it merely relied upon the submissions of the parties, it is further alleged that the General Court infringed the principle that it is to examine the facts of its own motion. In particular, the General Court did not address the issue of whether the Robinson R66 helicopter could, or could not, be flown without danger.

The judgment of the General Court should also be set aside because it infringed substantive EU law by mistakenly applying by analogy the principle on which it assesses ‘complex economic appraisals’ to the present area of law in the present case. The General Court’s case-law (inter alia, judgment of 17 September 2007, Case T-201/04 (2), in Microsoft v Commission, paragraph 87 et seq.) concerning those rules cannot be applied by analogy to the present area of law. The present case concerns neither rules of competition law, nor decisions of the Commission. Nor did the present case involve a ‘complex technical issue’, since neither the defendant nor the Board of Appeal addressed such issues.

Finally, the General Court took the view that there could be no liability to pay compensation unless all of the conditions of the duty to make good damage caused set out in Article 340 TFEU were fulfilled. Having erred in law with regard to the action for annulment, the General Court further erred in dismissing the action for damages. Since the General Court should have allowed in both the annulment of the original decision as well as that of the Board of Appeal, the action for damages should also have been allowed.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ 2008 L 79, p. 1).

(2)  ECLI:EU:T:2007:289.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

(Case C-72/15)

(2015/C 155/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

Defendants: Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

Questions referred

The questions referred concern Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP (2) and Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP (3) (collectively, ‘the Decision’) and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (4), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (5) and Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 (6) (collectively, ‘the EU Regulation’). They are the following:

| 1) | Having regard in particular to Article 19(1) TEU, Article 24 TEU, Article 40 TEU, Article 47 EUCFR and Article 275, second paragraph, TFEU does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the validity of Article 1(2)(b)-(d), Article 1(3), Article 4, Article 4(a), Article 7 and Annexe III of the Decision? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Having regard in particular to Article 19(1) TEU, Article 24 TEU, Article 40 TEU, Article 47 EUCFR and Article 275, second paragraph, TFEU does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the validity of Article 1(2)(b)-(d), Article 1(3), Article 4, Article 4(a), Article 7 and Annexe III of the Decision?

| 2) | (a) | Are one or more of the following provisions (‘the Relevant Measures’) of the EU Regulation and, to the extent that the Court has jurisdiction, the Decision invalid:






  i) | Article 4 and Article 4a of the Decision; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2)

(a)

Are one or more of the following provisions (‘the Relevant Measures’) of the EU Regulation and, to the extent that the Court has jurisdiction, the Decision invalid:

i)

Article 4 and Article 4a of the Decision;

| ii) | Articles 3, 3a, 4(3)-4(4) and Annex II of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Oil Sector Provisions’); |
| --- | --- |

ii)

Articles 3, 3a, 4(3)-4(4) and Annex II of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Oil Sector Provisions’);

| iii) | Articles 1(2)(b)-(d) and 1(3) and Annex III of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

Articles 1(2)(b)-(d) and 1(3) and Annex III of the Decision;

| iv) | Articles 5(2)(b)-(d), 5(3) and Annex VI of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Securities and Lending Provisions’); |
| --- | --- |

iv)

Articles 5(2)(b)-(d), 5(3) and Annex VI of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Securities and Lending Provisions’);

| v) | Article 7 of the Decision; and |
| --- | --- |

v)

Article 7 of the Decision; and

| vi) | Article 11 of the EU Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

vi)

Article 11 of the EU Regulation.

| 2) | (b) | In so far as the Relevant Measures are valid, is it contrary to the principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa for a Member State to impose criminal penalties, pursuant to Article 8 of the EU Regulation, before the scope of the relevant offence has been sufficiently clarified by the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

(b)

In so far as the Relevant Measures are valid, is it contrary to the principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa for a Member State to impose criminal penalties, pursuant to Article 8 of the EU Regulation, before the scope of the relevant offence has been sufficiently clarified by the Court of Justice?

| 3) | In so far as the relevant prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Question 2(a) are valid:






  a) | Does the term ‘'financial assistance’ in Article 4(3) of the EU Regulation include the processing of a payment by a bank or other financial institution? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3)

In so far as the relevant prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Question 2(a) are valid:

a)

Does the term ‘'financial assistance’ in Article 4(3) of the EU Regulation include the processing of a payment by a bank or other financial institution?

| b) | Does Article 5 of the EU Regulation prohibit the issuing of, or other dealings with, Global Depositary Receipts (‘GDRs’) issued on or after 12 September 2014 under a deposit agreement with one of the entities listed in Annex VI, in respect of shares in one of those entities which were issued before 12 September 2014? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Does Article 5 of the EU Regulation prohibit the issuing of, or other dealings with, Global Depositary Receipts (‘GDRs’) issued on or after 12 September 2014 under a deposit agreement with one of the entities listed in Annex VI, in respect of shares in one of those entities which were issued before 12 September 2014?

| c) | If the Court considers that there is a lack of clarity which can appropriately be resolved by the Court providing further guidance, what is the correct interpretation of the terms ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ in Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 and 3a of the EU Regulation? In particular, if the CJEU considers it necessary and appropriate, can it provide a geological interpretation of the term ‘shale’ to be used in implementing the Regulation, and clarify whether the measurement of ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ is to be taken from the point of drilling or elsewhere? |
| --- | --- |

c)

If the Court considers that there is a lack of clarity which can appropriately be resolved by the Court providing further guidance, what is the correct interpretation of the terms ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ in Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 and 3a of the EU Regulation? In particular, if the CJEU considers it necessary and appropriate, can it provide a geological interpretation of the term ‘shale’ to be used in implementing the Regulation, and clarify whether the measurement of ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ is to be taken from the point of drilling or elsewhere?

---

(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 229, p. 13.

(2)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 271, p. 54.

(3)  Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP OJ L 349, p. 58.

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 229, p. 1.

(5)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 271, p. 3.

(6)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 OJ L 349, p. 20.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-73/15)

(2015/C 155/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Vicdantrans SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing a tax, called an ‘environmental stamp duty’, such as that provided for in Emergency Government Order No 9/2013, payable upon the registration of second-hand motor vehicles coming from another Member State or upon the transfer of ownership of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market, but not payable in respect of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market for which a similar tax — levied contrary to EU law — had been previously paid which has not been repaid?

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-80/15)

(2015/C 155/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Question referred

Must Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) laying down provisions for the Customs Code as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 (2) be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flight training with helicopters in which a trainer and trainee are in the helicopter also amounts to a commercial use of a means of transport?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993, L 253, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2003, L 343 p. 1).

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV

(Case C-92/15)

(2015/C 155/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sven Mathys

Defendant: De Grave Antverpia NV

Question referred

Is Article 3 of the Belgian Law of 5 May 1936 on inland waterway chartering compatible with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 96/75/EC (1), in so far as a person who is not the owner or operator of an inland waterway vessel concludes a contract for the carriage of goods on inland waterways as carrier and is not acting as an agent (‘charterer’) within the meaning of Article 3 WBB?

---

(1)  Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport in the Community (OJ 1996, L 304, p. 12).

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/15

---

Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

(Case C-125/15 P)

(2015/C 155/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco and E. Beysen, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union, in so far as it rejects the second to fourth heads of claim made by the CJEU in its application to the General Court under Article 114 of that court’s Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union, in so far as it rejects the second to fourth heads of claim made by the CJEU in its application to the General Court under Article 114 of that court’s Rules of Procedure;

| — | grant those heads of claim and, accordingly:






  — | giving a final ruling on the dispute, dismiss Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S. A.’s action for damages as inadmissible as it is brought against the CJEU (as representative of the European Union); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

grant those heads of claim and, accordingly:

—

giving a final ruling on the dispute, dismiss Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S. A.’s action for damages as inadmissible as it is brought against the CJEU (as representative of the European Union);

| — | in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice should consider that the fact that the action has been brought against the CJEU and not the Commission (as representative of the EU) does not affect its admissibility but that, in ruling on the preliminary issue raised by the CJEU before it, the General Court should have ordered that the Commission be substituted for the CJEU as defendant, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the damages claim brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A., in accordance with the points of law decided by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice should consider that the fact that the action has been brought against the CJEU and not the Commission (as representative of the EU) does not affect its admissibility but that, in ruling on the preliminary issue raised by the CJEU before it, the General Court should have ordered that the Commission be substituted for the CJEU as defendant, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the damages claim brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A., in accordance with the points of law decided by the Court of Justice;

| — | order Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A. to pay the costs incurred by the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A. to pay the costs incurred by the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the CJEU relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging, first, infringement of the rules relating to the representation of the European Union before its judicature, and, second, breach of the General Court’s duty to state reasons.

In the first ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the representation of the European Union before its judicature, the CJEU observes that, in the absence of any express provision specifically governing the representation of the EU before its judicature in actions brought on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, the rules relating to such representation must be inferred from the general principles governing the exercise of judicial functions, in particular the principle of the sound administration of justice and the principle that courts must be independent and impartial.

In its second ground of appeal, the CJEU submits that, in the absence of any specific rebuttal of an argument presented before the General Court which was based on the scope of the judgments in Case C-40/12 P Gascogne Sack v Commission (1) and C-58/12 P Groupe Gascogne v Commission
   (2), the order under appeal is vitiated by breach of the duty to state adequate reasons.

---

(1)  EU:C:2013:768.

(2)  EU:C:2013:770.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/16

---

Action brought on 12 March 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-126/15)

(2015/C 155/18)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by making packets of cigarettes on which duty has already been levied and which have been released for consumption in a particular year subject to a prohibition on marketing and sale to the public once the excessively short period laid down in Article 27 of Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration has expired, the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with Articles 7, the first paragraph of Article 9 and Article 39(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) concerning the general arrangements for excise duty, and with the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by making packets of cigarettes on which duty has already been levied and which have been released for consumption in a particular year subject to a prohibition on marketing and sale to the public once the excessively short period laid down in Article 27 of Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration has expired, the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with Articles 7, the first paragraph of Article 9 and Article 39(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) concerning the general arrangements for excise duty, and with the principle of proportionality;

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

—

order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 2008/118 and the principle of proportionality








  — | It is apparent from Article 7 of Directive 2008/118/EC (‘the Directive’) that excise duty on tobacco products becomes chargeable at the time of release for consumption and at the rate then in force. Article 9 of the Directive provides that the chargeability conditions and rate of excise duty to be applied are to be those in force on the date on which duty becomes chargeable. Once the products in question have been released for consumption, there is no provision in EU tax legislation which gives Member States the option of imposing on such products, having regard to the date on which they are released for consumption, excise duty in addition to the duty payable or of restricting the distribution of the products for fiscal reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 2008/118 and the principle of proportionality

—

It is apparent from Article 7 of Directive 2008/118/EC (‘the Directive’) that excise duty on tobacco products becomes chargeable at the time of release for consumption and at the rate then in force. Article 9 of the Directive provides that the chargeability conditions and rate of excise duty to be applied are to be those in force on the date on which duty becomes chargeable. Once the products in question have been released for consumption, there is no provision in EU tax legislation which gives Member States the option of imposing on such products, having regard to the date on which they are released for consumption, excise duty in addition to the duty payable or of restricting the distribution of the products for fiscal reasons.

| — | In Portugal, under Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration (‘the Decree’), cigarette packets bearing a stamp for a given financial year may be sold and marketed only until the end of the third month of the year following that corresponding to the year shown on the stamp, namely the year in which they were released for consumption. As a transitional measure, the Decree provided that the time-limit for sale was fixed at the end of May 2008 for cigarette packets bearing the 2007 stamp and at the end of April 2009 for products bearing the 2008 stamp. |
| --- | --- |

—

In Portugal, under Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration (‘the Decree’), cigarette packets bearing a stamp for a given financial year may be sold and marketed only until the end of the third month of the year following that corresponding to the year shown on the stamp, namely the year in which they were released for consumption. As a transitional measure, the Decree provided that the time-limit for sale was fixed at the end of May 2008 for cigarette packets bearing the 2007 stamp and at the end of April 2009 for products bearing the 2008 stamp.

| — | The Commission therefore took the view that the Portuguese legislation in question infringes Article 7 and the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Directive, while not ruling out the possibility that that legislation may be justified on grounds relating to the public interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission therefore took the view that the Portuguese legislation in question infringes Article 7 and the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Directive, while not ruling out the possibility that that legislation may be justified on grounds relating to the public interest.

| — | However, the Commission submits that the reasons put forward by Portugal during the administrative phase of the procedure to justify that legislation (the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, the protection of public health, the fight against illicit trade in tobacco and ensuring the receipt of tax revenue) are not acceptable as the principle of proportionality is infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

However, the Commission submits that the reasons put forward by Portugal during the administrative phase of the procedure to justify that legislation (the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, the protection of public health, the fight against illicit trade in tobacco and ensuring the receipt of tax revenue) are not acceptable as the principle of proportionality is infringed.

| 2. | Article 39(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC and the principle of proportionality








  — | Article 39(3) of the Directive establishes that Member States are to ensure that tax markings do not create obstacles to the free movement of excise goods. The prohibition introduced by Portugal has created such obstacles by providing that cigarette packets bearing a stamp for a given financial year may be sold and marketed only until the end of the third month of the year following that corresponding to the year shown on the stamp. The fear of importers that they will be unable to offload existing stocks which cannot be sold if the rate of the duty is altered may deter them from making their normal purchases, especially from other Member States, thereby affecting trade to extent greater than necessary, in order to combat, for example, an excessive rise in consumption before the excise duty is increased. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 39(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC and the principle of proportionality

—

Article 39(3) of the Directive establishes that Member States are to ensure that tax markings do not create obstacles to the free movement of excise goods. The prohibition introduced by Portugal has created such obstacles by providing that cigarette packets bearing a stamp for a given financial year may be sold and marketed only until the end of the third month of the year following that corresponding to the year shown on the stamp. The fear of importers that they will be unable to offload existing stocks which cannot be sold if the rate of the duty is altered may deter them from making their normal purchases, especially from other Member States, thereby affecting trade to extent greater than necessary, in order to combat, for example, an excessive rise in consumption before the excise duty is increased.

| — | The Commission therefore takes the view that the prohibition on sales and marketing resulting from the Decree creates obstacles to the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 39(3) of the Directive and goes beyond what is necessary to prevent evasion, avoidance or abuse. As a consequence, the prohibition is also at odds with Article 39(3) of the Directive and with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission therefore takes the view that the prohibition on sales and marketing resulting from the Decree creates obstacles to the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 39(3) of the Directive and goes beyond what is necessary to prevent evasion, avoidance or abuse. As a consequence, the prohibition is also at odds with Article 39(3) of the Directive and with the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2008 L 9, p. 12).

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/17

---

Action brought on 13 March 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-128/15)

(2015/C 155/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón y A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Kingdom of Spain claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested measure, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested measure, and

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Infringement by the Council of its margin of discretion in fixing fishing opportunities for 2015 and 2016 in Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2014
   (1)
  and Part 2 of the Annex thereto for the species roundnose grenadier (RNG — Coryphaenoides rupestris) in zones Vb, VI and VII, and roughhead grenadier (RHG — Macrourus berglax) in zones VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV, which undermines the relative stability of historical catches of the species roughhead grenadier by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement by the Council of its margin of discretion in fixing fishing opportunities for 2015 and 2016 in Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2014
   (1)
  and Part 2 of the Annex thereto for the species roundnose grenadier (RNG — Coryphaenoides rupestris) in zones Vb, VI and VII, and roughhead grenadier (RHG — Macrourus berglax) in zones VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV, which undermines the relative stability of historical catches of the species roughhead grenadier by the Kingdom of Spain.

| 2. | Compliance with the principle of proportionality. Regulation No 1367/2014 is manifestly disproportionate with regard to the fixing of the combined TAC for the two species of grenadier in zones V, VI and VII on the one hand, and for zones VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV on the other. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compliance with the principle of proportionality. Regulation No 1367/2014 is manifestly disproportionate with regard to the fixing of the combined TAC for the two species of grenadier in zones V, VI and VII on the one hand, and for zones VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV on the other.

| 3. | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The principle of non-discrimination has been infringed in the fixing of a combined TAC for the two species of grenadier, since in comparison with the cases referred to, the principle of relative stability was not complied with and the TAC was imposed unilaterally by the European institutions without taking account of Spain’s legitimate demands. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The principle of non-discrimination has been infringed in the fixing of a combined TAC for the two species of grenadier, since in comparison with the cases referred to, the principle of relative stability was not complied with and the TAC was imposed unilaterally by the European institutions without taking account of Spain’s legitimate demands.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 of 15 December 2014 fixing for 2015 and 2016 the fishing opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2014 L 366, p. 1).

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/18

---

Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case C-139/15 P)

(2015/C 155/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for determination, and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for determination, and

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

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12. By its judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to certain projects.

The Commission relies on two grounds of appeal. Primarily, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error of law in holding that the Commission had to adopt the decision on financial corrections within a period determined on the basis of the basic legislative act in force at the date of the hearing between the Commission and the Member State. In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error of law in holding that that the period imposed on the Commission for the adoption of the decision on financial corrections is a mandatory period, disregard for which constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement which invalidates a decision adopted outside that period.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/19

---

Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission

(Case C-140/15 P)

(2015/C 155/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

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

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12. In that judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2011)9990 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to certain projects.

The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on two grounds of appeal. By its primary ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had to adopt the decision on financial corrections within a time-limit, which is determined by the basic act in force on the date of the hearing between the Commission and the Member State. In the alternative, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the time-limit imposed on the Commission for adopting the decision on financial corrections is a mandatory time-limit, non-observance of which constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement that invalidates the decision adopted outside that time-limit.

---

General Court

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Slovenská pošta v Commission

(Case T-556/08) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Slovakian traditional mail and hybrid mail services markets - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC - Exclusive right to distribute hybrid mail - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Definition of the market - Extension of a monopoly - Article 86(2) EC - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 155/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) (represented initially by O. Brouwer, C. Schillemans and M. Knapen, then by O. Brouwer and P. Schepens and, lastly, by O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Cromwell a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia); Slovak Mail Services a.s. (Bratislava); Prvá Doručovacia a.s. (Bratislava) (represented initially by M. Maier and P. Werner, and subsequently by P. Werner, lawyers); and ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o., formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o. (Bratislava) (represented initially by J. Ellison, Solicitor, and T. Rybár, lawyer, and subsequently by T. Rybár and I. Pecník, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5912 final of 7 October 2008 on the Slovakian postal legislation relating to hybrid mail services (Case COMP/39.562 — Slovakian postal law).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Slovenská pošta a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s. and ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o.; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Slovenská pošta a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s. and ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o.;

| 3) | Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA

(Case T-297/09) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services - Classification of a tenderer in second or third position in the cascade procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))

(2015/C 155/23)

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 Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: F. Kämpfe, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of EASA’s decisions to classify the applicant’s tenders in second or third position according to the cascade mechanism in call for tender EASA.2009.OP.02 relating to ‘ICT Services’ in the field of information technology and communications (OJ 2009/S 22-030588) and, second, for damages for the harm alleged to have been suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of 6 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE third in the cascade mechanism for lot 2 (client-server applications, development and maintenance) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of 6 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE third in the cascade mechanism for lot 2 (client-server applications, development and maintenance) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02;

| 2. | Annuls EASA’s decision of 10 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis second in the cascade mechanism for lot 3 (system, database, and network administration) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls EASA’s decision of 10 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis second in the cascade mechanism for lot 3 (system, database, and network administration) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02;

| 3. | Annuls EASA’s decision of 14 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis second in the cascade mechanism for lot 5 (enterprise content management (‘ECM’), enterprise records management, document management implementation, maintenance and support) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls EASA’s decision of 14 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis second in the cascade mechanism for lot 5 (enterprise content management (‘ECM’), enterprise records management, document management implementation, maintenance and support) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02;

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

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 5. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis to bear 25 % of its own costs and pay 25 % of the costs incurred by EASA, and EASA to bear 75 % of its own costs and pay 75 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis to bear 25 % of its own costs and pay 25 % of the costs incurred by EASA, and EASA to bear 75 % of its own costs and pay 75 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-538/11) (1)

((State aid - Public health - Aid granted to finance screening tests for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Adversely affecting act - Admissibility - Notion of advantage - Notion of selectivity))

(2015/C 155/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet and S. Thomas, and subsequently by H. van Vliet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)) (OJ 2011 L 274, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-563/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Right to property - Right to reputation - Proportionality))

(2015/C 155/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran (Iran)) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Central Bank of Iran to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Central Bank of Iran to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink)

(Case T-378/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark English pink - Earlier Community word mark PINK LADY and earlier Community figurative mark Pink Lady - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of diligence - Decisions by a Community trade mark court - No res judicata))

(2015/C 155/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carolus C. BVBA (Nieuwerkerken, Belgium)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, on the one hand, and Carolus C. BVBA, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and by Star Fruits Diffusion; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and by Star Fruits Diffusion;

| 4. | Orders Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion to bear half of their costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion to bear half of their costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Sea Handling v Commission

(Case T-456/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial access))

(2015/C 155/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sea Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented initially by B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Grespan and C. Zadra, and subsequently by D. Grespan and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 June 2013 refusing to grant Sea Handling access to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sea Handling SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sea Handling SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED)

(Case T-551/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED - Earlier national figurative mark VAMED - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 155/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Michael Radecki (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann then S. Hanne, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Vamed AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Paulitsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2013 (Case R 365/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vamed AG and Michael Radecki.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michael Radecki to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michael Radecki to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

(Case T-581/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB - Earlier Community figurative trade marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 155/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor)

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

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by D. Russo, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities CV and Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012-2) to the extent that it refused Community trade mark application No 9642621 in respect of ‘whips, harness, and saddlery’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013 (Case R 1374/2012-2) to the extent that it refused Community trade mark application No 9642621 in respect of ‘whips, harness, and saddlery’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael)

(Case T-596/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Nael - Earlier Community word mark Mc Neal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 155/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Emsibeth SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: A. Arpaia, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Dusseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1663/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg KG and Emsibeth SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Emsibeth SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Emsibeth SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)

(Case T-72/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 155/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2013 (Case R 284/2013-2) concerning the registration of the word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES as an international registration designating the European Community.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR)

(Case T-132/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 155/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Albis Plastic GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: initially by C. Klawitter, and subsequently by C. Klawitter and P. Nagel, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by G. Schneider, and subsequently by G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL (Masíes de Roda, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2013 (Case R 1015/2012-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL and Albis Plastic GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2015 — Europower v Commission

(Case T-383/14 R)

((Interim measures - Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency))

(2015/C 155/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Europower SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cocco and L. Salomoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti, L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, in essence, for suspension of operation of the decision of 3 April 2014 in which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by Europower in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine on the Ispra (Italy) site of its Joint Research Centre (JRC) (OJ 2013/S 137-237146) and awarded the contract to CPL Concordia, and consequently all other subsequent decisions.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/28

---

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission

(Case T-82/15)

(2015/C 155/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA (Amarousio, Greece) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler and G. Pandey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the following acts, to the extent that the Court finds that the acts produce legal effects and to the extent that these acts refuse the eligibility of claims made by the applicant under the Grant Agreement with the reference number project 216837 ATRACO, concluded within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration services (2007-2013), and purport to impose on the applicant an obligation to repay funds received and to pay liquidated damages:






  — | Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 with reference number ARES (2014) 4162021; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the following acts, to the extent that the Court finds that the acts produce legal effects and to the extent that these acts refuse the eligibility of claims made by the applicant under the Grant Agreement with the reference number project 216837 ATRACO, concluded within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration services (2007-2013), and purport to impose on the applicant an obligation to repay funds received and to pay liquidated damages:

—

Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 with reference number ARES (2014) 4162021;

| — | Commission decision contained in the debit note of 23 October 2012 with the reference number ARES (2012) 1248814; |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission decision contained in the debit note of 23 October 2012 with the reference number ARES (2012) 1248814;

| — | Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 without a reference number; |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 without a reference number;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of article 41.1-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to be heard
  The applicant puts forward that the Commission has acknowledged that the original audit procedure entailed a violation of its right to be heard, and that on this basis, the Commission decided to re-open the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of article 41.1-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to be heard

The applicant puts forward that the Commission has acknowledged that the original audit procedure entailed a violation of its right to be heard, and that on this basis, the Commission decided to re-open the case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and a violation of the applicant’s legitimate expectations
  The applicant puts forward that the decision to reopen the audit procedure entailed a legitimate expectation that any new decision would be based on facts relating to the substance of the audit, and not on procedural rules that would have applied to the submission of documentation in the original audit procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and a violation of the applicant’s legitimate expectations

The applicant puts forward that the decision to reopen the audit procedure entailed a legitimate expectation that any new decision would be based on facts relating to the substance of the audit, and not on procedural rules that would have applied to the submission of documentation in the original audit procedure.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.2.c of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by giving an insufficient statement of reasons
  The applicant puts forward that the statement of reasons given by the Commission in its review decision was insufficient as it only concerned one of two contested issues and as it only in a superficial manner referred to the submitted documentation as being insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.2.c of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by giving an insufficient statement of reasons

The applicant puts forward that the statement of reasons given by the Commission in its review decision was insufficient as it only concerned one of two contested issues and as it only in a superficial manner referred to the submitted documentation as being insufficient.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
  Finally, the applicant puts forward that in the absence of any documentation as to the outcome of the re-opened audit procedure and therefore also the opportunity for the applicant to present its case before a revised decision was taken, the review decision of the Commission, and in consequence the original audit decision must be regarded as expressions of a manifest error of assessment and as adopted in violation of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

Finally, the applicant puts forward that in the absence of any documentation as to the outcome of the re-opened audit procedure and therefore also the opportunity for the applicant to present its case before a revised decision was taken, the review decision of the Commission, and in consequence the original audit decision must be regarded as expressions of a manifest error of assessment and as adopted in violation of the applicant’s right to be heard.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/30

---

Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Binca Seafoods v Commission

(Case T-94/15)

(2015/C 155/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 (Freedom to conduct a business), Article 20 (Equality before the law) and Article 21 (Non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a result of arbitrary difference in treatment
  The applicant alleges that, although the European Commission provided for transitional measures and special rules for other types of organic aquaculture in the implementing regulation, it arbitrarily failed to extend the transitional period expiring on 1 January 2015 laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 (1).
  The European Commission was aware that, although the release of the eggs from the organically kept females needed to be triggered by means of hormones, iridescent sharks were, in fact, kept in wholly organic conditions from the time of spawning. Since this is not consistent with the prospective general rules of EU law on aquaculture and other methods of triggering spawning are still in the course of development, the transitional period must be extended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 (Freedom to conduct a business), Article 20 (Equality before the law) and Article 21 (Non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a result of arbitrary difference in treatment

The applicant alleges that, although the European Commission provided for transitional measures and special rules for other types of organic aquaculture in the implementing regulation, it arbitrarily failed to extend the transitional period expiring on 1 January 2015 laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 (1).

The European Commission was aware that, although the release of the eggs from the organically kept females needed to be triggered by means of hormones, iridescent sharks were, in fact, kept in wholly organic conditions from the time of spawning. Since this is not consistent with the prospective general rules of EU law on aquaculture and other methods of triggering spawning are still in the course of development, the transitional period must be extended.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission by the Council
  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the powers conferred on it by the Council cautiously to develop the regulatory framework of EU law for organic aquaculture so as to ensure that advances made in organic production methods are taken into account by the time of expiry of the transitional provisions without, however, the expiry of those provisions having the effect of forcing out of the market for organic products aquaculture certified as organic from 2009 onwards and in accordance with recognised rules. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission by the Council

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the powers conferred on it by the Council cautiously to develop the regulatory framework of EU law for organic aquaculture so as to ensure that advances made in organic production methods are taken into account by the time of expiry of the transitional provisions without, however, the expiry of those provisions having the effect of forcing out of the market for organic products aquaculture certified as organic from 2009 onwards and in accordance with recognised rules.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to engage freely in world trade
  The European Commission intentionally opted not to take into account the jointly developed rules of the Codex Alimentarius, although it did not oppose the application of the general rule that juveniles from non-organic reproduction may be used in organic aquaculture if they cannot be reproduced through organic breeding, but rather adopted that formulation jointly with the other parties to the Codex Alimentarius. The European Union was therefore prevented from disburdening itself from the Codex without contravening its obligations under the WTO-Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to engage freely in world trade

The European Commission intentionally opted not to take into account the jointly developed rules of the Codex Alimentarius, although it did not oppose the application of the general rule that juveniles from non-organic reproduction may be used in organic aquaculture if they cannot be reproduced through organic breeding, but rather adopted that formulation jointly with the other parties to the Codex Alimentarius. The European Union was therefore prevented from disburdening itself from the Codex without contravening its obligations under the WTO-Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (JO 2008 L 250, p. 1).

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

---

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

(Case T-99/15)

(2015/C 155/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NOOSFERA’ — Application for registration No 11 233 681

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2014 in Case R 158/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark);

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

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

---

Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission

(Case T-100/15)

(2015/C 155/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: Rechtsanwälte M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6);

| — | 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

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

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1924/2006 (1)

The applicant claims that there are no grounds to justify the refusal to authorise the five health claims which have nonetheless received five favourable scientific assessments from the European Food Safety Authority. Those five health claims neither infringe generally accepted nutrition and health principles, nor convey a conflicting and confusing message to consumers. They are also neither ambiguous nor misleading.

Second plea in law, alleging a lack of proportionality

The applicant claims that, in view of the favourable opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on the applicant’s five health claims, the absolute ban on advertising resulting from the rejection of those health claims was disproportionate.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality

The applicant submits that the defendant has refused to authorise scientifically uncontested health claims despite having authorised similar health claims in the past.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to provide sufficient grounds

Finally, the applicant claims that the contested regulation does not provide sufficient grounds; it cannot be discerned whether the defendant took into account the arguments of the applicant and of the public, nor whether it even carried out an independent appraisal of those arguments.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/32

---

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Militos Symvouleftiki/Commission

(Case T-104/15)

(2015/C 155/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Militos Symvouleftiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 16 December 2014, rejecting as unfounded the applicant’s referral for legality review of 23 October 2014, and upholding the decision of 23 September 2014 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, regarding the ineligibility of remuneration paid to the applicant’s partners/shareholders as staff costs in two projects successfully executed by the applicant, namely ‘Go Green — Green Business is smart Business’ project (Agreement No. 510424-LLP-1-2010-1-GR-LEONARDO-LMP) and ‘LadybizIT’ project (Agreement No. 2011-3052-518310-LLP-1-2011-1-GR-LEONARDO-LAM), and determine eligible as staff costs in the project concerned the relevant costs corresponding to the ‘additional’ services provided by Ms Olga Stavropoulou, Mr Pavlos Aravantinos, and Mr Karamanlis, or, in the alternative, determine solely the costs corresponding to the ‘additional’ services provided by Ms Olga Stavropoulou and Mr Pavlos Aravantinos in the two projects in question eligible under Article II.14 of the grant agreement and its annex III and payable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 16 December 2014, rejecting as unfounded the applicant’s referral for legality review of 23 October 2014, and upholding the decision of 23 September 2014 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, regarding the ineligibility of remuneration paid to the applicant’s partners/shareholders as staff costs in two projects successfully executed by the applicant, namely ‘Go Green — Green Business is smart Business’ project (Agreement No. 510424-LLP-1-2010-1-GR-LEONARDO-LMP) and ‘LadybizIT’ project (Agreement No. 2011-3052-518310-LLP-1-2011-1-GR-LEONARDO-LAM), and determine eligible as staff costs in the project concerned the relevant costs corresponding to the ‘additional’ services provided by Ms Olga Stavropoulou, Mr Pavlos Aravantinos, and Mr Karamanlis, or, in the alternative, determine solely the costs corresponding to the ‘additional’ services provided by Ms Olga Stavropoulou and Mr Pavlos Aravantinos in the two projects in question eligible under Article II.14 of the grant agreement and its annex III and payable to the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs borne by the applicant in the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs borne by the applicant in the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the Commission.






  — | The Commission failed to take into consideration the fact that the distinction between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ services provided by the partners/shareholders in the context of the projects concerned could have been made in view of the nature of such services, the wording and the spirit of the provisions of the applicant’s Statutes of the time and of the provisions of the decision of 20 December 2010 of the General Assembly of the applicant’s partners/shareholders. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the Commission.

—

The Commission failed to take into consideration the fact that the distinction between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ services provided by the partners/shareholders in the context of the projects concerned could have been made in view of the nature of such services, the wording and the spirit of the provisions of the applicant’s Statutes of the time and of the provisions of the decision of 20 December 2010 of the General Assembly of the applicant’s partners/shareholders.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment of the Commission.






  — | The Commission’s consideration, according to which the capacity of the administrator as such precludes him from providing other services to the applicant under an employment contract with a genuine link of subordination, is contrary to the settled case-law of the Courts of the European Union. In any case, the applicant provided the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and the Commission with sufficient evidence establishing that the control exerted by the project manager on the administrator was real and met the criteria set by the case-law for the existence of a genuine link of subordination. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment of the Commission.

—

The Commission’s consideration, according to which the capacity of the administrator as such precludes him from providing other services to the applicant under an employment contract with a genuine link of subordination, is contrary to the settled case-law of the Courts of the European Union. In any case, the applicant provided the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and the Commission with sufficient evidence establishing that the control exerted by the project manager on the administrator was real and met the criteria set by the case-law for the existence of a genuine link of subordination.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/33

---

Action brought on 4 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission

(Case T-113/15)

(2015/C 155/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or in part, Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final, of 18 December 2014, concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final, of 18 December 2014, concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made an error in law, resulting from a breach and/or an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (1) and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant, including for the purposes of judicial review, for the purposes of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation. The Applicant also challenges the consequential finding that a full deduction for all reported sales costs and profit, including export-related costs and a reasonable profit of an unrelated importer, from the constructed export price was warranted; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made an error in law, resulting from a breach and/or an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (1) and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant, including for the purposes of judicial review, for the purposes of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation. The Applicant also challenges the consequential finding that a full deduction for all reported sales costs and profit, including export-related costs and a reasonable profit of an unrelated importer, from the constructed export price was warranted;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2) and a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the constructed export price. According to the Applicant, even by following the Commission’s methodology, the Commission should have found that the conditions of Article 11(10) were met at least as regards a part of the amounts applied for. The second plea also argues for a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, resulting from the Commission’s methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last investigation which led to the duty; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2) and a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the constructed export price. According to the Applicant, even by following the Commission’s methodology, the Commission should have found that the conditions of Article 11(10) were met at least as regards a part of the amounts applied for. The second plea also argues for a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, resulting from the Commission’s methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last investigation which led to the duty;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (3) and Article 18.3.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, which occurred when the Commission, for the purpose of determining constructed normal values, applied a new methodology and could not justify that methodology by any relevant change in circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (3) and Article 18.3.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, which occurred when the Commission, for the purpose of determining constructed normal values, applied a new methodology and could not justify that methodology by any relevant change in circumstances.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/34

---

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)

(Case T-126/15)

(2015/C 155/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grup Supeco Maxor, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Supeco’ — Application for registration No 10 884 741

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1112/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 4 December 2014 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1112/2014-5 in so far as in upholding in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark at issue, it overturned the Opposition Division’s decision upholding in part Opposition B 2 0 54  040 and refusing in part Community trade mark No 10 884 741 ‘Supeco’ (figurative); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 December 2014 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1112/2014-5 in so far as in upholding in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark at issue, it overturned the Opposition Division’s decision upholding in part Opposition B 2 0 54  040 and refusing in part Community trade mark No 10 884 741 ‘Supeco’ (figurative); and

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

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/35

---

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

(Case T-129/15)

(2015/C 155/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WAVE 2 PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 117

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1857/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently






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

—

declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/35

---

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE TO PAY)

(Case T-130/15)

(2015/C 155/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WAVE TO PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 141

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1864/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently






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

—

declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-129/15.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/36

---

Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-135/15)

(2015/C 155/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in so far as it is contested in the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 53 final) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as it is contested in the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 53 final) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests, in particular:

| (a) | the part of the decision in which, following audit EX/2010/010, concerning the sugar sector, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 9 0 4 98  735,16 was made, in respect of financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009 on the basis of a ‘correct interpretation of sugar production’; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the part of the decision in which, following audit EX/2010/010, concerning the sugar sector, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 9 0 4 98  735,16 was made, in respect of financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009 on the basis of a ‘correct interpretation of sugar production’;

| (b) | the part of the decision, in which, following audit CEB/2011/090, concerning promotional measures, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 6 07  275,90 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’ relating to financial year 2010; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the part of the decision, in which, following audit CEB/2011/090, concerning promotional measures, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 6 07  275,90 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’ relating to financial year 2010;

| (c) | the part of the decision in which, following audit LA/2009/006, concerning the measure ‘information and promotion campaigns for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries’, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 1 98  831,03 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the part of the decision in which, following audit LA/2009/006, concerning the measure ‘information and promotion campaigns for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries’, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 1 98  831,03 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging breach of Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), and also infringement of the Member State’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging breach of Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), and also infringement of the Member State’s rights of defence.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging breach of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (JO 2006 L 171, p. 60), breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (JO 2006 L 176, p. 32), and that the Commission acted at odds with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November in C-187/12, C-188/12 and C-189/12, SFIR and Others (EU:C:2013:737). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging breach of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (JO 2006 L 171, p. 60), breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (JO 2006 L 176, p. 32), and that the Commission acted at odds with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November in C-187/12, C-188/12 and C-189/12, SFIR and Others (EU:C:2013:737).

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the non bis in idem rule and of the duty of sincere cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the non bis in idem rule and of the duty of sincere cooperation.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation No 1290/2005, breach of the second subparagraph of Article 11(3) and of Chapter 3 of Regulation No 885/2006, and breach of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation No 1290/2005, breach of the second subparagraph of Article 11(3) and of Chapter 3 of Regulation No 885/2006, and breach of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging breach of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 883/2006, and also the existence, in the present case, of a difference in treatment and distortion of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging breach of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 883/2006, and also the existence, in the present case, of a difference in treatment and distortion of the facts.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging breach of Article 20 of Regulation No 501/2008, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of imputability of financial corrections to the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging breach of Article 20 of Regulation No 501/2008, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of imputability of financial corrections to the Member States.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/37

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

(Case T-594/13) (1)

(2015/C 155/44)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

(Case T-598/13) (1)

(2015/C 155/45)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission

(Case T-260/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/46)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission

(Case T-263/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/47)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Styron Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-271/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/48)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission

(Case T-274/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/49)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/39

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — egeplast international v Commission

(Case T-291/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/50)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/39

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Buderus Guss v Commission

(Case T-302/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/51)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/39

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polyblend v Commission

(Case T-303/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/52)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/39

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission

(Case T-304/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/53)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/39

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polymer-Chemie v Commission

(Case T-306/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/54)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/40

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — TechnoCompound v Commission

(Case T-307/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/55)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/40

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission

(Case T-308/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/56)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/40

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission

(Case T-309/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/57)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/40

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Fritz Winter Eisengießerei v Commission

(Case T-310/14) (1)

(2015/C 155/58)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament

(Case F-124/13) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Action for annulment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Internal Rules for the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Manifest errors of assessment - None - Role and powers of the Advisory Committee on Harassment and its Prevention in the Workplace - Option for an official to approach the Committee - Action for damages))

(2015/C 155/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CW (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to grant the request for assistance submitted by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by CW; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by CW;

| 3. | Declares that CW is to bear half of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that CW is to bear half of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 54.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission

(Case F-6/14) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Survivor’s pension - First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff - Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff - Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements))

(2015/C 155/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Julia Borghans (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: F. Van der Schueren and C. Lefèvre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension following the death of her ex-spouse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of 3 June 2013 by which the European Commission refused to grant a survivor’s pension to Mrs Borghans; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of 3 June 2013 by which the European Commission refused to grant a survivor’s pension to Mrs Borghans;

| 2) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Borghans. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Borghans.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22/3/2014, p. 28.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/42

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CN v Parliament

(Case F-26/14) (1)

((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Request for assistance - Psychological harassment))

(2015/C 155/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CN (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Alves, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision rejecting the request for assistance brought by the applicant for psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament implicitly rejecting CN’s request for assistance of 13 February 2013; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament implicitly rejecting CN’s request for assistance of 13 February 2013;

| 2) | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 18 December 2013 dismissing CN’s complaint of 26 August 2013; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 18 December 2013 dismissing CN’s complaint of 26 August 2013;

| 3) | Orders the European Parliament to pay CN the sum of EUR 45  785,29; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Parliament to pay CN the sum of EUR 45  785,29;

| 4) | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CN. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CN.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10/6/2014, p. 56.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case F-38/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary action - Revocation and reduction of the invalidity allowance - Proportionality of the penalty - Manifest error of assessment - Concept of conduct of the official throughout his career - Adhering to working hours))

(2015/C 155/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Council to impose the penalty of revoking and reducing the invalidity allowance by 15 % until the age of retirement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Coedo Suárez to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Coedo Suárez to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 45.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament

(Case F-41/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - Psychological harassment - Decision to award one merit point))

(2015/C 155/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CW (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and J. Steele, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action seeking the annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 and the decision to award her only one merit point.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that CW is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that CW is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014, p. 34.

---

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/44

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Singou v Council

(Case F-143/14)

((Civil Service - Contract staff - Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment - Non-renewal of contract - No claim - Manifestly inadmissible))

(2015/C 155/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Simplice Gervais Singou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Dambel, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2009 to reject a complaint of psychological harassment made by the applicant and application to annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2012 by which the Appointing Authority refused to extend the applicant’s contract or transform it into a permanent contractual staff contract, and applications for damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The application for legal aid is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application for legal aid is rejected.

| 3. | Mr Singou shall bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Singou shall bear his own costs.

---