# Official Journal C 235/21 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 235 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5721 July 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 235

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5721 July 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2014/C 235/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2014/C 235/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2014/C 235/02 | Case C-143/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 March 2014 — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) | 2 |
| 2014/C 235/03 | Case C-148/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2014 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG | 2 |
| 2014/C 235/04 | Case C-175/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Ralph Prankl | 3 |
| 2014/C 235/05 | Case C-176/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap | 4 |
| 2014/C 235/06 | Case C-200/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014 — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București | 5 |
| 2014/C 235/07 | Case C-203/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2014 — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva | 5 |
| 2014/C 235/08 | Case C-215/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd | 6 |
| 2014/C 235/09 | Case C-220/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union | 6 |
| 2014/C 235/10 | Case C-221/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-490/13 GJ v Court of Justice of the European Union | 7 |
| 2014/C 235/11 | Case C-222/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) lodged on 7 May 2014 — Konstantinos Maistrellis v Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights | 8 |
| 2014/C 235/12 | Case C-232/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2014 — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs | 9 |
| 2014/C 235/13 | Case C-235/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014 — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others | 9 |
| 2014/C 235/14 | Case C-238/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 10 |
| 2014/C 235/15 | Case C-252/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014 — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket | 11 |
| 2014/C 235/16 | Case C-263/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union | 11 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 235/17 | Case T-66/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment) | 13 |
| 2014/C 235/18 | Case T-67/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sina Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Measures against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility — Rights of the defence) | 14 |
| 2014/C 235/19 | Case T-68/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Hemmati v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Prohibition on entry or on transit — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons) | 15 |
| 2014/C 235/20 | Case T-161/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Free v OHIM Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FreeLounge — Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX, earlier national word mark FREE, company name FREE and domain name FREE.FR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Power to alter) | 16 |
| 2014/C 235/21 | Case T-495/12 to T-497/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE — Earlier national figurative mark Dracula — Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 16 |
| 2014/C 235/22 | Case T-269/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Brune v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — New decision of the Commission adopted following annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — No participation in the oral test) | 17 |
| 2014/C 235/23 | Case T-141/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 18 |
| 2014/C 235/24 | Case T-142/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 18 |
| 2014/C 235/25 | Case T-197/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — La Zaragozana/OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN'S) | 19 |
| 2014/C 235/26 | Case T-201/14: Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM) | 19 |
| 2014/C 235/27 | Case T-202/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014 — LR Health & Beauty Systems/OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.) | 20 |
| 2014/C 235/28 | Case T-233/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD) | 21 |
| 2014/C 235/29 | Case T-246/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino) | 21 |
| 2014/C 235/30 | Case T-247/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (MINIMINI) | 22 |
| 2014/C 235/31 | Case T-248/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice) | 23 |
| 2014/C 235/32 | Case T-249/14: Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi) | 23 |
| 2014/C 235/33 | Case T-255/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS) | 24 |
| 2014/C 235/34 | Case T-261/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2014 by Robert Walton against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13, Walton v Commission | 25 |
| 2014/C 235/35 | Case T-262/14: Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Bionecs/OHMI — Fidia Farmaceutici (BIONECS) | 25 |
| 2014/C 235/36 | Case T-322/14: Action brought on 7 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de) | 26 |
| 2014/C 235/37 | Case T-325/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de) | 27 |
| 2014/C 235/38 | Case T-327/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM — Grupo Lactalis Iberia (Representation of a red and white chessboard) | 28 |
| 2014/C 235/39 | Case T-333/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes) | 29 |
| 2014/C 235/40 | Case T-344/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe) | 29 |
| 2014/C 235/41 | Case T-345/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN) | 30 |
| 2014/C 235/42 | Case T-383/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Europower v Commission | 31 |
| 2014/C 235/43 | Case T-384/14: Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Italy v Commission | 32 |
| 2014/C 235/44 | Case T-500/13: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Seatech International and Others v Commission | 33 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2014/C 235/45 | Case F-22/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — ZZ v EMCDDA | 34 |
| 2014/C 235/46 | Case F-41/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Parliament | 34 |
| 2014/C 235/47 | Case F-48/14: Action brought on 22 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission | 35 |
| 2014/C 235/48 | Case F-76/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2014 — Fasano v Commission | 35 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 235/02

Case C-143/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 March 2014 — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

2

2014/C 235/03

Case C-148/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2014 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG

2

2014/C 235/04

Case C-175/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Ralph Prankl

3

2014/C 235/05

Case C-176/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap

4

2014/C 235/06

Case C-200/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014 — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București

5

2014/C 235/07

Case C-203/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2014 — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

5

2014/C 235/08

Case C-215/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd

6

2014/C 235/09

Case C-220/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union

6

2014/C 235/10

Case C-221/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-490/13 GJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

7

2014/C 235/11

Case C-222/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) lodged on 7 May 2014 — Konstantinos Maistrellis v Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

8

2014/C 235/12

Case C-232/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2014 — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

9

2014/C 235/13

Case C-235/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014 — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others

9

2014/C 235/14

Case C-238/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

10

2014/C 235/15

Case C-252/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014 — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket

11

2014/C 235/16

Case C-263/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

11

General Court

2014/C 235/17

Case T-66/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

13

2014/C 235/18

Case T-67/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sina Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Measures against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility — Rights of the defence)

14

2014/C 235/19

Case T-68/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Hemmati v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Prohibition on entry or on transit — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons)

15

2014/C 235/20

Case T-161/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Free v OHIM Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark FreeLounge — Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX, earlier national word mark FREE, company name FREE and domain name FREE.FR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Power to alter)

16

2014/C 235/21

Case T-495/12 to T-497/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE — Earlier national figurative mark Dracula — Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

16

2014/C 235/22

Case T-269/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Brune v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — New decision of the Commission adopted following annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — No participation in the oral test)

17

2014/C 235/23

Case T-141/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

18

2014/C 235/24

Case T-142/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

18

2014/C 235/25

Case T-197/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — La Zaragozana/OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN'S)

19

2014/C 235/26

Case T-201/14: Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

19

2014/C 235/27

Case T-202/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014 — LR Health & Beauty Systems/OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)

20

2014/C 235/28

Case T-233/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)

21

2014/C 235/29

Case T-246/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino)

21

2014/C 235/30

Case T-247/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (MINIMINI)

22

2014/C 235/31

Case T-248/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice)

23

2014/C 235/32

Case T-249/14: Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)

23

2014/C 235/33

Case T-255/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)

24

2014/C 235/34

Case T-261/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2014 by Robert Walton against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13, Walton v Commission

25

2014/C 235/35

Case T-262/14: Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Bionecs/OHMI — Fidia Farmaceutici (BIONECS)

25

2014/C 235/36

Case T-322/14: Action brought on 7 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

26

2014/C 235/37

Case T-325/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

27

2014/C 235/38

Case T-327/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM — Grupo Lactalis Iberia (Representation of a red and white chessboard)

28

2014/C 235/39

Case T-333/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)

29

2014/C 235/40

Case T-344/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)

29

2014/C 235/41

Case T-345/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)

30

2014/C 235/42

Case T-383/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Europower v Commission

31

2014/C 235/43

Case T-384/14: Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Italy v Commission

32

2014/C 235/44

Case T-500/13: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

33

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2014/C 235/45

Case F-22/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — ZZ v EMCDDA

34

2014/C 235/46

Case F-41/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

34

2014/C 235/47

Case F-48/14: Action brought on 22 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission

35

2014/C 235/48

Case F-76/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2014 — Fasano v Commission

35

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/1

---

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

2014/C 235/01

Last publication

OJ C 223, 14.7.2014

Past publications

OJ C 212, 7.7.2014

OJ C 202, 30.6.2014

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014

OJ C 184, 16.6.2014

OJ C 175, 10.6.2014

OJ C 159, 26.5.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 March 2014 — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-143/14)

2014/C 235/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TMK Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Question referred

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (1) of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia invalid because the Commission, in breach of the requirements applicable to the determination of injury laid down in Article 3(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, assumed such (injury) to exist without taking into account in this regard the fact that, pursuant to an unpublished decision of 25 November 1994 (Case IV/35.304), adopted on the basis of, inter alia, Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ English Special Edition 19591962, p. 87), the Commission had carried out an investigation into the possible existence of anti-competitive practices concerning pipes and tubes of non-alloy steel which might possibly infringe Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, pp. 3 to 522) and Article 81 EC?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2014 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG

(Case C-148/14)

2014/C 235/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent: Nordzucker AG

Additional party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Must Article 16(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the excess emissions penalty must also be applied in the case where an operator has, by 30 April of a given year, surrendered a number of allowances corresponding to the total emissions stated in its report on emissions from the installation for the preceding year, and that report has been assessed as satisfactory by the verifier, but where the competent authority, after 30 April, has established that the verified emissions report had erred by understating the total quantity of emissions, the report was duly corrected and the operator surrendered the additional allowances within the new period for surrender?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Ralph Prankl

(Case C-175/14)

2014/C 235/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ralph Prankl

Defendant: Bundesfinanzgericht

Question referred

Are Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC (2) of 14 December 1992 (OJ 1992 L 390, p. 1), to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide that where excise goods (cigarettes) have been released for consumption in a (first) Member State and, without an accompanying document in accordance with Article 7(4) of that directive, have been transported by land to another Member State (Member State of destination) through one or more other Member States (transit Member States) in order to be sold in the Member State of destination, excise duty (tobacco duty) is charged also in a transit Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and amending Directive 92/81/EEC; OJ 1992 L 390, p. 124.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap

(Case C-176/14)

2014/C 235/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans

Defendant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 10 of Annex I of the 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’, together with Annexes I, II and III, the protocols and the Final Act, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (1), be interpreted as meaning that it seeks the exclusion of the same positions as Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 10 of Annex I of the 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’, together with Annexes I, II and III, the protocols and the Final Act, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (1), be interpreted as meaning that it seeks the exclusion of the same positions as Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement?

| 2. | Must Article 14 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (2) of 25 November 2003‘concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents’ be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a specific exclusion of an economic activity on the basis of Article 14(3), a long-term resident of another Member State will gain unlimited access to the Belgian labour market, including to positions which, on the basis of Article 11(1)(a) or Article 11(3)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC, could be denied to long-term residents of Belgium, or to positions from which EEA nationals could also be excluded pursuant to Article 45(4) TFEU or Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 14 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (2) of 25 November 2003‘concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents’ be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a specific exclusion of an economic activity on the basis of Article 14(3), a long-term resident of another Member State will gain unlimited access to the Belgian labour market, including to positions which, on the basis of Article 11(1)(a) or Article 11(3)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC, could be denied to long-term residents of Belgium, or to positions from which EEA nationals could also be excluded pursuant to Article 45(4) TFEU or Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement?

| 3. | Must Article 6 and Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (3)‘on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963’ be interpreted as meaning that the terms ‘any paid employment of his choice’, ‘any paid employment of their choice’ and ‘any offer of employment’ also cover all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply by analogy to the application of those provisions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 6 and Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (3)‘on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963’ be interpreted as meaning that the terms ‘any paid employment of his choice’, ‘any paid employment of their choice’ and ‘any offer of employment’ also cover all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply by analogy to the application of those provisions?

| 4. | Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker who comply with all the conditions laid down in that provision, regardless of their nationality, also have access to all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply to them by analogy? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker who comply with all the conditions laid down in that provision, regardless of their nationality, also have access to all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply to them by analogy?

| 5. | Can the national court, in a judicial appeal brought by a citizen against a measure of general application which, in conformity with Decision No 1/80, but contrary to higher national provisions, gives Turkish workers and their families access to certain positions in the public service, have recourse to that Decision, given that that Decision has not been officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the national court, in a judicial appeal brought by a citizen against a measure of general application which, in conformity with Decision No 1/80, but contrary to higher national provisions, gives Turkish workers and their families access to certain positions in the public service, have recourse to that Decision, given that that Decision has not been officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union?

| 6. | Does it make a difference to the answer to the previous question if the applicant relies on his functional role as a member of the Flemish Parliament in that regard, so that he cannot be equated with an ordinary legal subject? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does it make a difference to the answer to the previous question if the applicant relies on his functional role as a member of the Flemish Parliament in that regard, so that he cannot be equated with an ordinary legal subject?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

(2)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

(3)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014 — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București

(Case C-200/14)

2014/C 235/06

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silvia Georgiana Câmpean

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu București

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 17, 20, 21(1) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice that taxes prohibited by EU law must be refunded, Recommendation Rec (2003)16 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and Resolution 1787 (2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, is it possible that a provision such as Article XV of Emergency Government Order No 8/2014 is thereby precluded?

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2014 — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

(Case C-203/14)

2014/C 235/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorci Sanitari del Maresme

Defendant: Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

Questions referred

| 1) | For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must public administrations be regarded as public entities? |
| --- | --- |

1)

For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must public administrations be regarded as public entities?

| 2) | If so, for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, must public administrations be regarded as economic operators and accordingly as being permitted to participate in public tendering procedures? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If so, for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, must public administrations be regarded as economic operators and accordingly as being permitted to participate in public tendering procedures?

| 3) | If so, for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, may and must public administrations be included in the official lists of approved contractors, suppliers or service providers or be certified by certification bodies established under public or private law, known under Spanish national law as a business classification system? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If so, for the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, may and must public administrations be included in the official lists of approved contractors, suppliers or service providers or be certified by certification bodies established under public or private law, known under Spanish national law as a business classification system?

| 4) | For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, has Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011 adopting the consolidated text of the Law on Public Sector Contracts incorrectly transposed that directive into Spanish law and, if that is the case, has the Spanish legislature, through Articles 62 and 65 of Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011, limited the access of public administrations to the business classification registers? |
| --- | --- |

4)

For the purposes of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004, has Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011 adopting the consolidated text of the Law on Public Sector Contracts incorrectly transposed that directive into Spanish law and, if that is the case, has the Spanish legislature, through Articles 62 and 65 of Royal Legislative Decree 3/2011 of 14 November 2011, limited the access of public administrations to the business classification registers?

| 5) | If public administrations may participate in tenders but may not be accepted for business classification — in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 — by what means may they establish their eligibility to contract? |
| --- | --- |

5)

If public administrations may participate in tenders but may not be accepted for business classification — in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 — by what means may they establish their eligibility to contract?

---

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (United Kingdom) made on 28 April 2014 — Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd

(Case C-215/14)

2014/C 235/08

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société de Produits Nestlé SA

Defendant: Cadbury UK Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1), is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trade marks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1), is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trade marks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods?

| 2. | Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(l)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(l)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC?

| 3. | Should Article 3(l)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC be interpreted as precluding registration of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result with regard to the manner in which the goods are manufactured as opposed to the manner in which the goods function? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should Article 3(l)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC be interpreted as precluding registration of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result with regard to the manner in which the goods are manufactured as opposed to the manner in which the goods function?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks

OJ L 299, p. 25

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/6

---

Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union

(Case C-220/14 P)

2014/C 235/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (represented by: I. Burton, J. Binns, Solicitors, J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,

European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014, in Case T-256/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014, in Case T-256/11;

| — | Annul Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) of 21 March 2011 and Regulation No 270/2011 (2) of 21 March 2011, in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) of 21 March 2011 and Regulation No 270/2011 (2) of 21 March 2011, in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants;

| — | Order that the Council pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Council pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court; and

| — | Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 20 May 2011, the Appellants applied to the General Court to annul the Decision and the Regulation in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants (‘Application’). The General Court rejected that Application. The Appellants maintained that, in doing so, the General Court erred in law for the following reasons:

| 1) | First Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Decision was lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1)

First Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Decision was lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU.

| 2) | Second Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Ground for imposing restrictive measures against each of the Appellants was substantiated and/or satisfied the legal criteria for listing set out in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Second Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Ground for imposing restrictive measures against each of the Appellants was substantiated and/or satisfied the legal criteria for listing set out in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation.

| 3) | Third Plea: The General Court erred in its finding that the Council had complied with its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Third Plea: The General Court erred in its finding that the Council had complied with its obligation to state reasons.

| 4) | Fourth Plea: The General Court erred in its examination of the Appellant’s pleas in respect of infringement of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Fourth Plea: The General Court erred in its examination of the Appellant’s pleas in respect of infringement of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

| 5) | Fifth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellants’ property and/or freedom to conduct a business was proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

5)

Fifth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellants’ property and/or freedom to conduct a business was proportionate.

| 6) | Sixth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that there was no ‘manifest error of assessment’ by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

6)

Sixth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that there was no ‘manifest error of assessment’ by the Council.

---

(1)  OJ L 76, p. 63

(2)  OJ L 76, p. 4

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/7

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-490/13 GJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-221/14 P)

2014/C 235/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: S. Sagias, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for hearing on the merits or, in the alternative, uphold the claims put forward at first instance in their entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for hearing on the merits or, in the alternative, uphold the claims put forward at first instance in their entirety;

| — | order the defendant at first instance, respondent in the current proceedings, to pay the costs of all proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant at first instance, respondent in the current proceedings, to pay the costs of all proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal in support of his appeal against the order of the general Court of 27 February 2014.

By his first ground of appeal, the appellant begins by arguing that the General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations (1), as well as Articles 2 and 35 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities. The appellant claims, first, that the order under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court held that actions by former members of the Court against acts adversely affecting them in the area of JSIS coverage come solely within the scope of Article 263 TFEU and had to be brought within two months, as provided for under that provision. Secondly, the General Court erred in law in holding that Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials is not applicable to members and former members of the Court.

By his second ground of appeal, the appellant then argues that the General Court erred in law in refusing to apply the case-law on excusable error.

Lastly, by his third plea, the appellant submits that the application of Article 111 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure is vitiated by an error of law and a procedural irregularity. The appellant disagrees that the action brought before the General Court was ‘manifestly’ inadmissible, which prevented it from specifying the ground of inadmissibility which served as the basis for that ruling. The General Court also infringed the appellant’s right to a fair hearing, his rights of defence and, in particular, the right to be heard and the right to an effective remedy, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) lodged on 7 May 2014 — Konstantinos Maistrellis v Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

(Case C-222/14)

2014/C 235/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konstantinos Maistrellis

Defendant: Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 96/34/EC (1) and Directive 2006/54/EC (2), in so far as they are applicable, be interpreted as precluding national regulations, such as the contested provision of the third sentence of Article 53(3) of Law 3528/2007, providing that if the civil servant’s wife does not work or exercise any profession the male spouse is not entitled to parental leave, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child?

---

(1)  Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2014 — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-232/14)

2014/C 235/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portmeirion Group UK Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

Is the contested Regulation (Council Regulation No 412/2013 (1)) incompatible with EU law in so far as it

| i. | is based on manifest errors of assessment with respect to the definition of the product concerned, thereby invalidating the conclusions of the anti-dumping investigation; and |
| --- | --- |

i.

is based on manifest errors of assessment with respect to the definition of the product concerned, thereby invalidating the conclusions of the anti-dumping investigation; and

| ii. | lacks adequate reasons as required under Article 296 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

ii.

lacks adequate reasons as required under Article 296 TFEU?

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China

OJ L 131, p. 1

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014 — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others

(Case C-235/14)

2014/C 235/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Safe Interenvíos, S.A.

Defendants: Liberbank, S.A., Banco de Sabadell, S.A. and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1) | The interpretation of Article 11(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1):






  a) | If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, was it the Union legislature’s intention to establish a genuine derogation from the possibility that credit institutions may adopt customer due diligence measures when their customers are themselves payment institutions in turn subject to their own supervision system, or is it simply an authorisation to derogate? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

The interpretation of Article 11(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1):

a)

If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, was it the Union legislature’s intention to establish a genuine derogation from the possibility that credit institutions may adopt customer due diligence measures when their customers are themselves payment institutions in turn subject to their own supervision system, or is it simply an authorisation to derogate?

| b) | If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 5 of that directive, may the national legislature transpose the derogation laid down in the provision concerned in terms other than the actual wording thereof? |
| --- | --- |

b)

If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 5 of that directive, may the national legislature transpose the derogation laid down in the provision concerned in terms other than the actual wording thereof?

| c) | Does the derogation contained in Article 11(1) apply to enhanced due diligence measures too in the same terms as it applies to due diligence measures? |
| --- | --- |

c)

Does the derogation contained in Article 11(1) apply to enhanced due diligence measures too in the same terms as it applies to due diligence measures?

| 2) | In the alternative, should the reply to the above questions confirm that credit institutions may adopt due diligence measures and enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:






  a) | How far does the possibility that credit institutions may supervise the operations of payment institutions extend? Can they be deemed to be authorised under the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC to supervise the due diligence procedures and measures adopted in turn by payment institutions or does that power belong exclusively to the public institutions referred to in Directive 2007/64/EC (2), in the present case, the Banco de España (Bank of Spain)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

In the alternative, should the reply to the above questions confirm that credit institutions may adopt due diligence measures and enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

a)

How far does the possibility that credit institutions may supervise the operations of payment institutions extend? Can they be deemed to be authorised under the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC to supervise the due diligence procedures and measures adopted in turn by payment institutions or does that power belong exclusively to the public institutions referred to in Directive 2007/64/EC (2), in the present case, the Banco de España (Bank of Spain)?

| b) | Does the application of that right of credit institutions to adopt measures require any special justification that may be deduced from the acts of the payment institution or may those measures instead be adopted generally, simply on account of the fact that the payment institution carries out a risky activity such as the sending of remittances abroad? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Does the application of that right of credit institutions to adopt measures require any special justification that may be deduced from the acts of the payment institution or may those measures instead be adopted generally, simply on account of the fact that the payment institution carries out a risky activity such as the sending of remittances abroad?

| c) | If it is held that a specific justification is required in order for credit institutions to be able to adopt due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:






  i. | What is the relevant conduct that a bank must bear in mind for the purposes of adopting due diligence measures? |
| --- | --- | --- |

c)

If it is held that a specific justification is required in order for credit institutions to be able to adopt due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

i.

What is the relevant conduct that a bank must bear in mind for the purposes of adopting due diligence measures?

| ii. | Can a credit institution be considered authorised to assess, for that purpose, the due diligence measures which a payment institution applies in its procedures? |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Can a credit institution be considered authorised to assess, for that purpose, the due diligence measures which a payment institution applies in its procedures?

| iii. | Does the fact that a bank may have identified in a payment institution’s operations conduct leading it to suspect collaboration in money-laundering activities or in terrorist financing require the exercise of that power? |
| --- | --- |

iii.

Does the fact that a bank may have identified in a payment institution’s operations conduct leading it to suspect collaboration in money-laundering activities or in terrorist financing require the exercise of that power?

| 3) | In addition, if it should be held that credit institutions are authorised to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:






  a) | Is it acceptable that those measures may include a measure requiring payment institutions to provide identification data for all their customers from whom the funds remitted originate, and the identities of the recipients? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3)

In addition, if it should be held that credit institutions are authorised to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

a)

Is it acceptable that those measures may include a measure requiring payment institutions to provide identification data for all their customers from whom the funds remitted originate, and the identities of the recipients?

| b) | Is the obligation of payment institutions to provide their customers’ data to credit institutions with which they are forced to operate and with which they also compete on the market compatible with Directive 95/46/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Is the obligation of payment institutions to provide their customers’ data to credit institutions with which they are forced to operate and with which they also compete on the market compatible with Directive 95/46/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

(2)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/10

---

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-238/14)

2014/C 235/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D, Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1);

| — | order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the framework agreement.

The Commission considers that, for that category of workers, Luxembourg law does not provide for any objective reason allowing for the prevention of abuse of successive fixed-term contracts, contrary to Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex to the framework agreement in question.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014 — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket

(Case C-252/14)

2014/C 235/15

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Does Article 63 TFEU constitute an obstacle to national legislation under which dividends from a resident company are taxed at source if the shareholder is resident in another Member State, while such dividends — if paid to a resident shareholder — are subject to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a fictive yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital?

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/11

---

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

(Case C-263/14)

2014/C 235/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola, M. Allik, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania (1);

| — | order that the effects of Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 be maintained until it is replaced; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the effects of Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 be maintained until it is replaced;

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

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.

The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tanzania also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, thus covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.

Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded under the substantive legal bases of Articles 37 TEU and 82 and 87 TFEU, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU.

For this reason, the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.

Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at all stages of negotiations and conclusion of the Agreement.

Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

---

(1)  OJ L 108, p. 1

---

General Court

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council

(Case T-66/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))

2014/C 235/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ali Sedghi (Tehran, Iran) and Ahmad Azizi (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and M. Lester, Barrister, subsequently by S. Ashley, D. Wyatt, M. Lester, A. Irvine and S. Jeffrey, Solicitors, and finally by S. Ashley, D. Wyatt, M. Lester, A. Irvine and S. Millar, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bishop, I. Rodios and B. Driessen, and subsequently by M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment, with immediate effect, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and 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), in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and, in the alternative, for a declaration that Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of 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), Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 do not apply to Mr Azizi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the following, in so far as they concern Mr Ali Sedghi and Mr Ahmad Azizi:






  — | Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the following, in so far as they concern Mr Ali Sedghi and Mr Ahmad Azizi:

—

Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

| — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

| — | Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-67/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Measures against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility - Rights of the defence))

2014/C 235/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as 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), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and, secondly, of Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413, in so far as those provisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, and as being inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, and as being inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

| 2. | Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those measures maintained, after review, the name of Sina Bank in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413, and in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010, respectively; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those measures maintained, after review, the name of Sina Bank in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413, and in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010, respectively;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of Sina Bank; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of Sina Bank;

| 4. | Orders Sina Bank to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the Council’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Sina Bank to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the Council’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Hemmati v Council

(Case T-68/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Prohibition on entry or on transit - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 235/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as it included 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 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as it included the applicant’s name in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and, secondly, of Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413, in so far as those provisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, and as being inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, and as being inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

| 2. | Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413, in so far as it included Mr Abdolnaser Hemmati’s name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as it included Mr Hemmati’s name in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413, in so far as it included Mr Abdolnaser Hemmati’s name in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as it included Mr Hemmati’s name in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of Mr Hemmati’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of Mr Hemmati’s costs;

| 4. | Orders Mr Hemmati to bear one fifth of his own costs and to pay one fifth of the Council’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Hemmati to bear one fifth of his own costs and to pay one fifth of the Council’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Free v OHIM Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge)

(Case T-161/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FreeLounge - Earlier national figurative mark free ‘LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX’, earlier national word mark ‘FREE’, company name ‘FREE’ and domain name ‘FREE.FR’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter))

2014/C 235/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Conradi + Kaiser GmbH (Kleinmaischeid, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Conradi + Kaiser GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2) is annulled in so far as it considered that the services for online publication of electronic books and periodicals as well as the services for publication of periodicals and books in electronic form, including on the Internet, falling within Class 41 and covered by the application for registration, were not similar to the services to disseminate information electronically, in particular for Internet-style global communication networks, falling within Class 38 and covered by the earlier figurative mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2) is annulled in so far as it considered that the services for online publication of electronic books and periodicals as well as the services for publication of periodicals and books in electronic form, including on the Internet, falling within Class 41 and covered by the application for registration, were not similar to the services to disseminate information electronically, in particular for Internet-style global communication networks, falling within Class 38 and covered by the earlier figurative mark;

| 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 194, 30.6.2012.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE)

(Case T-495/12 to T-497/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE - Earlier national figurative mark Dracula - Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 235/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ştei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania) (represented by: I. Niculeasa, G. Trantea and B. Mărculet, lawyers)

Re:

Three actions brought against three decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Cases R 680/2011-4, R 682/2011-4 and R 679/2011-4), concerning three opposition proceedings between European Drinks SA and SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Joins Cases T-495/12, T-496/12 and T-497/12 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Joins Cases T-495/12, T-496/12 and T-497/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2) | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the actions;

| 3) | Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Brune v Commission

(Case T-269/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - New decision of the Commission adopted following annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal - No participation in the oral test))

2014/C 235/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Markus Brune (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Markus Brune to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Markus Brune to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council

(Case T-141/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

2014/C 235/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA, (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1)

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.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council

(Case T-142/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

2014/C 235/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn (Germany)); Brandoni solare SpA, (Castelfidardo (Italy)); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, (Madrid (Spain)) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66)

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.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/19

---

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — La Zaragozana/OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN'S)

(Case T-197/14)

2014/C 235/25

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charles Cooper Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should reject the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2014 given in the case R 1284/2012-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Charles Cooper Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘GREEN’S’ for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 89  813

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘AMBAR-GREEN’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/19

---

Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

(Case T-201/14)

2014/C 235/26

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Body Shop International plc (Littlehampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vernimme, H. Viaene, S. Vandewynckel and D. Gillet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 1516/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 1516/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant, and, if necessary, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant, and, if necessary, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The wordmark ‘SPA WISDOM’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 9 00  748

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Benelux trademarks Nos 3 89  230, 4 99  046, 3 72  307 for the word mark ‘SPA’ and the Benelux trademark No 6 93  395 for the word mark ‘LES THERMES DE SPA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/20

---

Action brought on 28 March 2014 — LR Health & Beauty Systems/OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)

(Case T-202/14)

2014/C 235/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert McBride Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2014 in case R 272/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2014 in case R 272/2013-2;

| — | Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LR nova pure.’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 51  361

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration of the word mark NOVA

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/21

---

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)

(Case T-233/14)

2014/C 235/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1807/2013-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1807/2013-5;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark NEXTCARD for goods and services in Classes 9 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 3 79  931

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/21

---

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Yoworld v OHIM — Nestlé (yogorino)

(Case T-246/14)

2014/C 235/29

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yoworld SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2013 given in Case R 115/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2013 given in Case R 115/2013-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘yogorino’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 36  536

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier Community trade mark No 7 2 56  829

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/22

---

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (MINIMINI)

(Case T-247/14)

2014/C 235/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Barzanò, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February 2014 given in Case R 1159/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February 2014 given in Case R 1159/2013-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘STICK MINIMINI Fratelli Beretta 1812 GLI ORIGINALI’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 67  031

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘Mini Wini’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 38 — Community trade mark registration No 3 2 97  835

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/23

---

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice)

(Case T-248/14)

2014/C 235/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 given in Case R 119/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 given in Case R 119/2013-4;

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in class 32

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51  560 for the word ‘masafi’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a), (b) and 8(5) CTMR

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/23

---

Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)

(Case T-249/14)

2014/C 235/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 given in Case R 1131/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 given in Case R 1131/2013-4;

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51  560for the word ‘masafi’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/24

---

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)

(Case T-255/14)

2014/C 235/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Tomás Pedro, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 713/2013-2 in the part that it confirmed the decision of rejection of protection in the European Union to the International Registration 1 1 34  485‘APPCAMPUS’ (word) regarding computer software, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, compact discs, DVD’s and other digital recording media in class 9 and technological services and research and design relating thereto, design and development of computer software in class 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 713/2013-2 in the part that it confirmed the decision of rejection of protection in the European Union to the International Registration 1 1 34  485‘APPCAMPUS’ (word) regarding computer software, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, compact discs, DVD’s and other digital recording media in class 9 and technological services and research and design relating thereto, design and development of computer software in class 42;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International Registration designating the European Union No 1 1 34  485 of the word mark ‘APPCAMPUS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c), (b) and 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/25

---

Appeal brought on 25 April 2014 by Robert Walton against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13, Walton v Commission

(Case T-261/14 P)

2014/C 235/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13 Walton v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13 Walton v Commission;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal so that it may examine the third plea in law raised in the application initiating proceedings and adjudicate on the two other pleas in accordance with the judgment on appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal so that it may examine the third plea in law raised in the application initiating proceedings and adjudicate on the two other pleas in accordance with the judgment on appeal;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union in that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal did not give reasons for its decision and failed to adjudicate on a plea raised at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union in that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal did not give reasons for its decision and failed to adjudicate on a plea raised at first instance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata in that the Civil Service Tribunal provided an incorrect legal characterisation of the subject-matter of the decisions and judgments cited in relation to the object of the application at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata in that the Civil Service Tribunal provided an incorrect legal characterisation of the subject-matter of the decisions and judgments cited in relation to the object of the application at first instance.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of the defence and of legitimate expectations, giving rise to an excusable error on the part of the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of the defence and of legitimate expectations, giving rise to an excusable error on the part of the appellant.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/25

---

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Bionecs/OHMI — Fidia Farmaceutici (BIONECS)

(Case T-262/14)

2014/C 235/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bionecs GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fidia Farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 given in Case R 1179/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 given in Case R 1179/2013-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BIONECS’ for goods and services in classes 5, 29 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 50  638

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘BIONECT’ for goods in class 5 registered as international trade mark under the number 7 15  915

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/26

---

Action brought on 7 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Case T-322/14)

2014/C 235/36

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2014 in Case R 951/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2014 in Case R 951/2013-1;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 8 8 38  609

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Rezon OOD

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/27

---

Action brought on 6 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Case T-325/14)

2014/C 235/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 922/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 922/2013-1;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 9 3 76  989

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Rezon OOD

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/28

---

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM — Grupo Lactalis Iberia (Representation of a red and white chessboard)

(Case T-327/14)

2014/C 235/38

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts (Puteaux, France) (represented by: T. Mollet-Vieville and T. Cuche, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Lactalis Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

| — | Find that Community trade mark No 6 0 59  687 is valid for the designation of cheeses; |
| --- | --- |

—

Find that Community trade mark No 6 0 59  687 is valid for the designation of cheeses;

| — | In consequence, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59  687 is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59  687 is invalid;

| — | In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59  687 is invalid for the designation of cheeses; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59  687 is invalid for the designation of cheeses;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Representation of a red and white chessboard

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grupo Lactalis Iberia, SA

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the mark in question

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in fact and in law (infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/29

---

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)

(Case T-333/14)

2014/C 235/39

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Helbrecht (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lenci Calzature SpA (Turchetto-Montecarlo, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 830/2013-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 830/2013-5;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Lenci Calzature SpA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Lenci Calzature SpA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SportEyes’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 7 5 04  525

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lenci Calzature SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative marks including the word elements ‘EYE SPORT EYE’, ‘EYE fashion EYE’ and ‘EYE’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/29

---

Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)

(Case T-344/14)

2014/C 235/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by M. Kefferpütz and A. Wrage, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1223/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1223/2013-1;

| — | Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 do not preclude the publication of the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 do not preclude the publication of the mark applied for;

| — | Refer application No 01 1 4 27  507 back to the defendant so that the registration procedure may be resumed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer application No 01 1 4 27  507 back to the defendant so that the registration procedure may be resumed;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Deluxe’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 27  507

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/30

---

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)

(Case T-345/14)

2014/C 235/41

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Locura Digital, SL (Granollers, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 in Case R 407/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 in Case R 407/2013-4;

| — | Order OHIM to refuse to grant registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478‘WOUXUN’ in full |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to refuse to grant registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478‘WOUXUN’ in full

| — | Order Locura Digital, SL to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Locura Digital, SL to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Locura Digital, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/31

---

Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Europower v Commission

(Case T-383/14)

2014/C 235/42

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision rejecting, in favour of another tenderer, the tender submitted by Europower SpA in the call for tenders for the construction of a gas-turbine tri-generation power plant and the associated maintenance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision rejecting, in favour of another tenderer, the tender submitted by Europower SpA in the call for tenders for the construction of a gas-turbine tri-generation power plant and the associated maintenance;

| — | annul the decision relating to the characteristics and advantages of the selected tender; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision relating to the characteristics and advantages of the selected tender;

| — | annul the decision refusing to provide a copy of the documentation requested by the applicant by application of 7 April 2014 and make any orders which are accordingly necessary directing that the documentation be provided; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision refusing to provide a copy of the documentation requested by the applicant by application of 7 April 2014 and make any orders which are accordingly necessary directing that the documentation be provided;

| — | annul the additional refusal to provide access, issued following the confirmatory application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the additional refusal to provide access, issued following the confirmatory application;

| — | annul every consequent, intended or related measure, including even measures as yet unknown, and, in particular, annul the tender evaluation reports, any contract entered to with the successful tenderer, the verifications as to whether the successful tenderer satisfied the requirements as declared, all unknown measures, subject to the pleas being supplemented under Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul every consequent, intended or related measure, including even measures as yet unknown, and, in particular, annul the tender evaluation reports, any contract entered to with the successful tenderer, the verifications as to whether the successful tenderer satisfied the requirements as declared, all unknown measures, subject to the pleas being supplemented under Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

In the alternative:

| — | annul in part the call for tenders; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part the call for tenders;

| — | annul in part the administrative annex to the call for tenders; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part the administrative annex to the call for tenders;

| — | lastly, order the Commission to pay compensation for the harm caused, to the extent determined in the course of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, order the Commission to pay compensation for the harm caused, to the extent determined in the course of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the same tendering procedure as that at issue in Case T-355/14 STC SpA v Commission.

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

| | First plea: infringement of essential procedural requirements; breach of the principles of equal treatment under Article 148 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1): infringement of Article 113 of Regulation No 966/2012 and infringement of the tendering procedure rules; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in order to be admitted to the tendering procedure it was necessary to satisfy the technical capacity requirements referred to in point II.2.3, which required, on pain of exclusion, the complete construction — directly by the tenderers — of at least two combined power plants with a capacity of at least 8 MW. The successful tenderer should have been excluded because it did not satisfy those minimum requirements set out in tendering procedure rules. |
| --- | --- | --- |

First plea: infringement of essential procedural requirements; breach of the principles of equal treatment under Article 148 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1): infringement of Article 113 of Regulation No 966/2012 and infringement of the tendering procedure rules; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that, in order to be admitted to the tendering procedure it was necessary to satisfy the technical capacity requirements referred to in point II.2.3, which required, on pain of exclusion, the complete construction — directly by the tenderers — of at least two combined power plants with a capacity of at least 8 MW. The successful tenderer should have been excluded because it did not satisfy those minimum requirements set out in tendering procedure rules.

| | Second plea: infringement of Article 149 of Regulation No 1268/2012; infringement of Article 113 of Regulation No 966/2012 (2); infringement of Directive 2004/18/EC (3) (recital 39 thereto); together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the assessment and the award of the contract are unlawful in so far as the successful tenderer was not entitled to the score awarded to it, since the evaluation of the technical offer, on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Commission, must necessarily be based on the effective output of the plant and not on a unilateral declaration made by the tenderer. Consequently, there was breach of transparency and of equal treatment with respect to the tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

Second plea: infringement of Article 149 of Regulation No 1268/2012; infringement of Article 113 of Regulation No 966/2012 (2); infringement of Directive 2004/18/EC (3) (recital 39 thereto); together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the assessment and the award of the contract are unlawful in so far as the successful tenderer was not entitled to the score awarded to it, since the evaluation of the technical offer, on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Commission, must necessarily be based on the effective output of the plant and not on a unilateral declaration made by the tenderer. Consequently, there was breach of transparency and of equal treatment with respect to the tendering procedure.

| | Third plea: infringement of Article 112 of Regulation No 966/2012; breach of the principle of the secrecy of tenders, referred to in Article 111 of Regulation No 966/2012; infringement of Articles 157 and 159 of Regulation No 1268/2012; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the tendering procedures for award of the contract were carried out in a single sitting through the concurrent examination of administrative documents for the purpose of determining admission to the tendering procedure, technical offers and economic offers. Such a modus operandi is incompatible with the principle of the secrecy of tenders and the principle of the separation of tenders. |
| --- | --- | --- |

Third plea: infringement of Article 112 of Regulation No 966/2012; breach of the principle of the secrecy of tenders, referred to in Article 111 of Regulation No 966/2012; infringement of Articles 157 and 159 of Regulation No 1268/2012; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the tendering procedures for award of the contract were carried out in a single sitting through the concurrent examination of administrative documents for the purpose of determining admission to the tendering procedure, technical offers and economic offers. Such a modus operandi is incompatible with the principle of the secrecy of tenders and the principle of the separation of tenders.

| | Fourth plea: breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency; infringement of Articles 15 and 298 of the Treaty; infringement of Article 102 of Regulation No 966/2012; infringement of Article 6 of Directive 2004/18/EC; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that, following the decision refusing its tender, the Commission provided only the grid of the scores awarded and then unlawfully refused access to the documentation requested, even following the confirmatory application submitted by the applicant pursuant to Article 7 et seq. of Regulation No 1049/2001 (4). |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fourth plea: breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency; infringement of Articles 15 and 298 of the Treaty; infringement of Article 102 of Regulation No 966/2012; infringement of Article 6 of Directive 2004/18/EC; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that, following the decision refusing its tender, the Commission provided only the grid of the scores awarded and then unlawfully refused access to the documentation requested, even following the confirmatory application submitted by the applicant pursuant to Article 7 et seq. of Regulation No 1049/2001 (4).

| | Fifth plea: breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency; infringement of Articles 157 and 158 of Regulation No 1268/2012; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in breach of Article 157 of Regulation No 1268/2012, the failure to provide a copy of the evaluation reports and of the final award decisions prevented the applicant from gaining full knowledge of the preconditions laid down in the rules referred to. |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fifth plea: breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency; infringement of Articles 157 and 158 of Regulation No 1268/2012; together with the existence, in the present case, of a misuse of powers.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that, in breach of Article 157 of Regulation No 1268/2012, the failure to provide a copy of the evaluation reports and of the final award decisions prevented the applicant from gaining full knowledge of the preconditions laid down in the rules referred to.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

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

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

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/32

---

Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-384/14)

2014/C 235/43

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: B. Tidore, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C (2014) 2008 of 4 April 2014, notified on 7 April 2014, which excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States, and by Italy in particular, under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C (2014) 2008 of 4 April 2014, notified on 7 April 2014, which excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States, and by Italy in particular, under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant raises three pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: failure to observe Community principles and insufficient investigation.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that, in the contested decision, the Commission made a financial correction in response to some shortcomings observed during an on-site inspection which took place only in the Lazio and Abruzzo regions. The applicant contests the idea that the results of that inspection can be extrapolated beyond those regions and that the correction can be quantified at 5 %, since in reality the various regions of Italy are extremely diverse and in any event only one paying agency (the Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura) (the Agricultural Payments Agency) (AGEA) was involved. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: failure to observe Community principles and insufficient investigation.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that, in the contested decision, the Commission made a financial correction in response to some shortcomings observed during an on-site inspection which took place only in the Lazio and Abruzzo regions. The applicant contests the idea that the results of that inspection can be extrapolated beyond those regions and that the correction can be quantified at 5 %, since in reality the various regions of Italy are extremely diverse and in any event only one paying agency (the Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura) (the Agricultural Payments Agency) (AGEA) was involved.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Articles 43 and 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1).






  — | In its decision, the Commission asserted that the Italian State had misapplied the legislation on special rights, stating that a risk to the Fund had come about. The applicant submits that Articles 43 and 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 do not specify a particular method for the redistribution of special rights as regards the cases investigated by the Commission, and that the methodology adopted in Italy not only fully complies with that legislation, but, what is more, does not in itself represent a particular risk to the Fund. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Articles 43 and 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1).

—

In its decision, the Commission asserted that the Italian State had misapplied the legislation on special rights, stating that a risk to the Fund had come about. The applicant submits that Articles 43 and 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 do not specify a particular method for the redistribution of special rights as regards the cases investigated by the Commission, and that the methodology adopted in Italy not only fully complies with that legislation, but, what is more, does not in itself represent a particular risk to the Fund.

| 3. | Third plea in law: failure to observe the general principles of financial correction and compliance with the recognition criteria, and failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons.






  — | In its decision, the Commission made a correction in relation to the operational shortcomings attributable to the Agenzia della Regione Basilicata per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Basilicata Region Agricultural Payments Agency) (ARBEA), the paying agency whose recognition was withdrawn through the administration’s decision of 12 May 2010 with effect from 16 October 2010, the date when ARBEA’s competences were taken over by AGEA. The applicant criticises the Commission’s way of proceeding — that is, its extending to 2010 the correction previously applied to the financial years 2007-2009 on the assumption that the risks previously established were still present and adopting the same percentage — and also criticises its application of that correction to the period between the date on which recognition was withdrawn and the date on which AGEA took over ARBEA’s duties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: failure to observe the general principles of financial correction and compliance with the recognition criteria, and failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons.

—

In its decision, the Commission made a correction in relation to the operational shortcomings attributable to the Agenzia della Regione Basilicata per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Basilicata Region Agricultural Payments Agency) (ARBEA), the paying agency whose recognition was withdrawn through the administration’s decision of 12 May 2010 with effect from 16 October 2010, the date when ARBEA’s competences were taken over by AGEA. The applicant criticises the Commission’s way of proceeding — that is, its extending to 2010 the correction previously applied to the financial years 2007-2009 on the assumption that the risks previously established were still present and adopting the same percentage — and also criticises its application of that correction to the period between the date on which recognition was withdrawn and the date on which AGEA took over ARBEA’s duties.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/33

---

Order of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

(Case T-500/13) (1)

2014/C 235/44

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/34

---

Action brought on 26 May 2014 — ZZ v EMCDDA

(Case F-22/14)

2014/C 235/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request that she be found to have suffered psychological harassment at the hands of her immediate superior and, second, the decision not to renew her contract, and of two other decisions rejecting her complaints against her superiors. The applicant accordingly also requests that a new investigation be carried out and seeks compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly caused.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the applicant’s EMCDDA Director of 11 September 2012 rejecting the applicant’s request; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the applicant’s EMCDDA Director of 11 September 2012 rejecting the applicant’s request;

| — | annul the decision of 14 September 2012 not to renew the applicant’s contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 14 September 2012 not to renew the applicant’s contract;

| — | annul the decision of the Chairman of the Management Board of the EMCDDA of 13 May 2013 and that of the applicant’s EMCDDA Director of 25 June 2013 which rejected the applicant’s allegations in her complaint of 10 December 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Chairman of the Management Board of the EMCDDA of 13 May 2013 and that of the applicant’s EMCDDA Director of 25 June 2013 which rejected the applicant’s allegations in her complaint of 10 December 2013;

| — | order a new regular, unbiased and impartial investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order a new regular, unbiased and impartial investigation;

| — | grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 4 30  202; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 4 30  202;

| — | grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 1 20  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 1 20  000;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/34

---

Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-41/14)

2014/C 235/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Christophe Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the year 2012 and of the decision to award her one merit point for the year 2012.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested staff report, the decision on merit points and, so far as necessary, the decision on the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested staff report, the decision on merit points and, so far as necessary, the decision on the complaint;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/35

---

Action brought on 22 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-48/14)

2014/C 235/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment, firstly, of the decision of 14 February 2014 by which the selection board in selection procedure EU Careers EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-AD 5 confirmed, after re-examination, the initial decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of the competition and, secondly, insofar as necessary, of the initial decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of the competition selection board of 14 February 2014 and 3 October 2013 pursuant to which her application to competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-AD 5 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the competition selection board of 14 February 2014 and 3 October 2013 pursuant to which her application to competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-AD 5 was rejected;

| — | Make any other appropriate orders in that regard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Make any other appropriate orders in that regard;

| — | Order the Commission to pay an amount of EUR 5  000, or any other amount, even greater, to be determined by the Civil Service Tribunal ex aequo et bono, in compensation for the vexatious nature of the treatment of her application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay an amount of EUR 5  000, or any other amount, even greater, to be determined by the Civil Service Tribunal ex aequo et bono, in compensation for the vexatious nature of the treatment of her application;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.

---

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2014 — Fasano v Commission

(Case F-76/13) (1)

2014/C 235/48

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 291, 5/10/2013, p. 7.

---