# Official Journal C 372/20 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 372 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5720 October 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 372

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5720 October 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 372/01 | 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 372/01

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 372/02 | Case C-150/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg | 2 |
| 2014/C 372/03 | Case C-339/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann | 2 |
| 2014/C 372/04 | Case C-342/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2014 — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord | 3 |
| 2014/C 372/05 | Case C-371/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014 — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt | 3 |
| 2014/C 372/06 | Case C-375/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza | 4 |
| 2014/C 372/07 | Case C-386/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 13 August 2014 — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts | 4 |
| 2014/C 372/08 | Case C-388/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2014 — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin | 5 |
| 2014/C 372/09 | Case C-389/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Esso Italiana srl and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others | 5 |
| 2014/C 372/10 | Case C-390/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Astinomikos Diefthintis Larnakas v Masoud Mehrabipari | 7 |
| 2014/C 372/11 | Case C-391/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Api Raffineria di Ancona SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e and Others | 7 |
| 2014/C 372/12 | Case C-392/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others | 9 |
| 2014/C 372/13 | Case C-393/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others | 10 |
| 2014/C 372/14 | Case C-394/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH | 11 |
| 2014/C 372/15 | Case C-395/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2014 — Vodafone GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany | 12 |
| | General Court |
| 2014/C 372/16 | Case T-471/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Book publishing market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Decision approving the purchaser of the assets sold — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Breach of Article 266 TFEU — Failure to comply with the commitments imposed by the conditional clearance decision — Distinction between conditions and obligations — Principle of non-retroactivity — Assessment of the prospective purchaser — Purchaser’s independence from the seller — Misuse of power — Obligation to state reasons) | 13 |
| 2014/C 372/17 | Case T-516/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — MasterCard and Others v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — Documents drawn up by a third party — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party) | 13 |
| 2014/C 372/18 | Case T-218/12: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratórios Delta (DELTA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DELTA — Earlier national and international figurative marks DELTA PORTUGAL and company name LABORATORIOS DELTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2014/C 372/19 | Case T-461/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission (State aid — Airport charges — Lübeck Airport — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU — Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999) | 15 |
| 2014/C 372/20 | Case T-494/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuit) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a broken cookie — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 16 |
| 2014/C 372/21 | Case T-199/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — STAR (STAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark STAR — Earlier international figurative mark STAR LODI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 16 |
| 2014/C 372/22 | Case T-555/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Estonia v Commission | 17 |
| 2014/C 372/23 | Case T-567/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL) | 18 |
| 2014/C 372/24 | Case T-585/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Slovenia v Commission | 19 |
| 2014/C 372/25 | Case T-586/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission | 20 |
| 2014/C 372/26 | Case T-597/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council | 21 |
| 2014/C 372/27 | Case T-602/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Bena Properties v Council | 22 |
| 2014/C 372/28 | Case T-615/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of a crest) | 22 |
| 2014/C 372/29 | Case T-165/14: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — ANKO v Commission and REA | 23 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2014/C 372/02

Case C-150/14 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

2

2014/C 372/03

Case C-339/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann

2

2014/C 372/04

Case C-342/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2014 — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

3

2014/C 372/05

Case C-371/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014 — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

3

2014/C 372/06

Case C-375/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza

4

2014/C 372/07

Case C-386/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 13 August 2014 — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

4

2014/C 372/08

Case C-388/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2014 — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

5

2014/C 372/09

Case C-389/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Esso Italiana srl and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

5

2014/C 372/10

Case C-390/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Astinomikos Diefthintis Larnakas v Masoud Mehrabipari

7

2014/C 372/11

Case C-391/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Api Raffineria di Ancona SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e and Others

7

2014/C 372/12

Case C-392/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

9

2014/C 372/13

Case C-393/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

10

2014/C 372/14

Case C-394/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

11

2014/C 372/15

Case C-395/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2014 — Vodafone GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

12

General Court

2014/C 372/16

Case T-471/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Book publishing market — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Decision approving the purchaser of the assets sold — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Breach of Article 266 TFEU — Failure to comply with the commitments imposed by the conditional clearance decision — Distinction between conditions and obligations — Principle of non-retroactivity — Assessment of the prospective purchaser — Purchaser’s independence from the seller — Misuse of power — Obligation to state reasons)

13

2014/C 372/17

Case T-516/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — MasterCard and Others v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — Documents drawn up by a third party — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

13

2014/C 372/18

Case T-218/12: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratórios Delta (DELTA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DELTA — Earlier national and international figurative marks DELTA PORTUGAL and company name LABORATORIOS DELTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2014/C 372/19

Case T-461/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission (State aid — Airport charges — Lübeck Airport — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU — Article 107(1) TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

15

2014/C 372/20

Case T-494/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuit) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a broken cookie — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

16

2014/C 372/21

Case T-199/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — STAR (STAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark STAR — Earlier international figurative mark STAR LODI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

16

2014/C 372/22

Case T-555/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Estonia v Commission

17

2014/C 372/23

Case T-567/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

18

2014/C 372/24

Case T-585/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Slovenia v Commission

19

2014/C 372/25

Case T-586/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

20

2014/C 372/26

Case T-597/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

21

2014/C 372/27

Case T-602/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Bena Properties v Council

22

2014/C 372/28

Case T-615/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of a crest)

22

2014/C 372/29

Case T-165/14: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — ANKO v Commission and REA

23

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/1

---

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

2014/C 372/01

Last publication

OJ C 361, 13.10.2014

Past publications

OJ C 351, 6.10.2014

OJ C 339, 29.9.2014

OJ C 329, 22.9.2014

OJ C 315, 15.9.2014

OJ C 303, 8.9.2014

OJ C 292, 1.9.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/2

---

Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

(Case C-150/14 P)

2014/C 372/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Christin Vieweg

By order of 4 September 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann

(Case C-339/14)

2014/C 372/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Andreas Wittmann

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg

Question referred

Must Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as meaning that a situation where a driving licence has not been withdrawn from the driver of a vehicle only because his driving licence was withdrawn from him previously and he therefore no longer has a driving licence, and where, at the same time, an order is made to the effect that that person is not in any event to be issued with a new driving licence for a given period of time, is equivalent to the withdrawal of a driving licence?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences; OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2014 — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

(Case C-342/14)

2014/C 372/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 5 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) preclude a restriction of the freedom to provide services in a case where a tax consultancy company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State prepares in the Member State of its establishment, where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return for a recipient of services in another Member State and sends it to the tax authority, and national provisions in that other Member State require that a tax consultancy company be recognised as authorised to provide professional assistance in tax matters and that the tax advisers managing the company must act autonomously? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 5 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) preclude a restriction of the freedom to provide services in a case where a tax consultancy company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State prepares in the Member State of its establishment, where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return for a recipient of services in another Member State and sends it to the tax authority, and national provisions in that other Member State require that a tax consultancy company be recognised as authorised to provide professional assistance in tax matters and that the tax advisers managing the company must act autonomously?

| 2. | Can a tax consultancy company, in the circumstances referred to in question 1, rely successfully on Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2), irrespective of which of the two Member States is the one in which it provides the service? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a tax consultancy company, in the circumstances referred to in question 1, rely successfully on Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2), irrespective of which of the two Member States is the one in which it provides the service?

| 3. | Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a restriction, by measures applicable in the Member State of the recipient of services, of the freedom to provide services in the circumstances referred to in question 1, if the tax consultancy company is not established in the Member State of the recipient of the services? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a restriction, by measures applicable in the Member State of the recipient of services, of the freedom to provide services in the circumstances referred to in question 1, if the tax consultancy company is not established in the Member State of the recipient of the services?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.

(2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2014 — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-371/14)

2014/C 372/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 (1) of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not (OJ 2013 L 82 of 22.3.2013, pp. 10-17; ‘Regulation No 260/2013’) invalid because the anti-dumping duty introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, and which was to be extended, was no longer in force at the time when Regulation No 260/2013 was adopted?
  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 (1) of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not (OJ 2013 L 82 of 22.3.2013, pp. 10-17; ‘Regulation No 260/2013’) invalid because the anti-dumping duty introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, and which was to be extended, was no longer in force at the time when Regulation No 260/2013 was adopted?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

| 2. | Is Regulation No 260/2013 invalid because there is no evidence of circumvention, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation No [1225/2009], of the measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Regulation No 260/2013 invalid because there is no evidence of circumvention, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation No [1225/2009], of the measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (2)?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 82, p. 10.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 of 10 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China and consigned from or originating in Taiwan and on imports of certain refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China and consigned from or originating in Taiwan (OJ 2007 L 326, p. 1).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza

(Case C-375/14)

2014/C 372/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party to the main proceedings

Rosaria Laezza

Question referred

Are Article 49 and follows. and Article 56 and follows. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as also expanded upon by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in Case C-72/10, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the right to use the tangible and intangible assets constituting the network for managing and collecting bets upon cessation of that activity due to the expiry of the relevant licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 13 August 2014 — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

(Case C-386/14)

2014/C 372/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Groupe Steria SCA

Defendant: Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

Question referred

Must Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) on freedom of establishment be interpreted as precluding the rules governing the French tax-integration regime from granting a tax-integrated parent company neutralisation as regards the add-back of the proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies only, when such a right is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from its subsidiaries established in another Member State, which had they been resident would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected?

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2014 — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

(Case C-388/14)

2014/C 372/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Article 52(3) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax, ‘EStG’), in so far as the cause of the reinstatement of an amount corresponding to losses of a foreign permanent establishment previously taken into account by way of a tax reduction is the sale of that permanent establishment to another company limited by shares within the same group as the seller, and not the making of profits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Article 52(3) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax, ‘EStG’), in so far as the cause of the reinstatement of an amount corresponding to losses of a foreign permanent establishment previously taken into account by way of a tax reduction is the sale of that permanent establishment to another company limited by shares within the same group as the seller, and not the making of profits?

| 2. | Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be understood as precluding a provision such as Article 23(1)(a) of the DBA Deutschland/Österreich 2000 (2000 Double taxation convention between Germany and Austria) — according to which income from Austria is to be exempt from the basis of assessment for German taxation if that income can be taxed in Austria — if losses accrued in an Austrian permanent establishment of a German company limited by shares can no longer be taken into account in Austria because the permanent establishment is sold to an Austrian company limited by shares belonging to the same group as the German company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be understood as precluding a provision such as Article 23(1)(a) of the DBA Deutschland/Österreich 2000 (2000 Double taxation convention between Germany and Austria) — according to which income from Austria is to be exempt from the basis of assessment for German taxation if that income can be taxed in Austria — if losses accrued in an Austrian permanent establishment of a German company limited by shares can no longer be taken into account in Austria because the permanent establishment is sold to an Austrian company limited by shares belonging to the same group as the German company?

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Esso Italiana srl and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

(Case C-389/14)

2014/C 372/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Esso Italiana srl, Eni SpA, Linde Gas Italia srl

Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del Protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred

| 1) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

| 2) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

| 3) | Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

| 4) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 5) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 6) | Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

(2)  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).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Astinomikos Diefthintis Larnakas v Masoud Mehrabipari

(Case C-390/14)

2014/C 372/10

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Eparkhiako Dikastirio Larnakas

Parties to the main proceedings

Prosecutor: Astinomikos Diefthintis Larnakas

Defendant: Masoud Mehrabipari

Questions referred

| 1) | Having regard to the principle of sincere cooperation, the principle of effectiveness with a view to achieving the objectives of directives and the principle that penalties must be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable, can Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting criminal proceedings to be brought on the basis of national legislation that existed before harmonisation (Article 19(1)(f) and (i) of the [Aliens and Immigration Law (‘Chapter 105’)]) against an illegally staying third-country national upon whom unsuccessful coercive removal measures have been imposed and who has remained in detention for a period greater than 18 months, because he does not have a passport in his possession and does not cooperate with the authorities for the purpose of issue of such a passport through his embassy, pleading fear that he will be persecuted by the Iranian authorities? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Having regard to the principle of sincere cooperation, the principle of effectiveness with a view to achieving the objectives of directives and the principle that penalties must be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable, can Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting criminal proceedings to be brought on the basis of national legislation that existed before harmonisation (Article 19(1)(f) and (i) of the [Aliens and Immigration Law (‘Chapter 105’)]) against an illegally staying third-country national upon whom unsuccessful coercive removal measures have been imposed and who has remained in detention for a period greater than 18 months, because he does not have a passport in his possession and does not cooperate with the authorities for the purpose of issue of such a passport through his embassy, pleading fear that he will be persecuted by the Iranian authorities?

| 2) | If the above question is answered in the affirmative, can the criminal proceedings in question be brought immediately after the maximum period of 18 months’ detention for the purposes of deportation has been completed, with the result that the illegally staying third-country national is not released, but can continue to be detained because the criminal proceedings against him are pending if the court considers that necessary because of the risk of absconding? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the above question is answered in the affirmative, can the criminal proceedings in question be brought immediately after the maximum period of 18 months’ detention for the purposes of deportation has been completed, with the result that the illegally staying third-country national is not released, but can continue to be detained because the criminal proceedings against him are pending if the court considers that necessary because of the risk of absconding?

| 3) | What is the meaning of a ‘lack of cooperation’ by the third-country national in Article 15(6)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC and, in particular, is it permissible for its meaning to coincide with the provisions of national law (Article 19(1)(f) and (i) of the [Aliens and Immigration Law (‘Chapter 105’)]) which criminalise any refusal to ‘produce to the Director any document that the Director might request’ and any ‘defi[ance] or hind[rance], whether actively or passively, [of] any Director in the performance of his duties’ on account of failure to produce the passport, whilst, at the same time, no evidence is adduced relating to the actions which the authorities have taken vis-à-vis the country of origin for the successful removal of the third-country national? |
| --- | --- |

3)

What is the meaning of a ‘lack of cooperation’ by the third-country national in Article 15(6)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC and, in particular, is it permissible for its meaning to coincide with the provisions of national law (Article 19(1)(f) and (i) of the [Aliens and Immigration Law (‘Chapter 105’)]) which criminalise any refusal to ‘produce to the Director any document that the Director might request’ and any ‘defi[ance] or hind[rance], whether actively or passively, [of] any Director in the performance of his duties’ on account of failure to produce the passport, whilst, at the same time, no evidence is adduced relating to the actions which the authorities have taken vis-à-vis the country of origin for the successful removal of the third-country national?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Api Raffineria di Ancona SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e and Others

(Case C-391/14)

2014/C 372/11

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Api Raffineria di Ancona SpA

Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

| 1) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

| 2) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

| 3) | Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

| 4) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 5) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 6) | Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

(2)  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).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

(Case C-392/14)

2014/C 372/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria

Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

| 1) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

| 2) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

| 3) | Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

| 4) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 5) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 6) | Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

(2)  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).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

(Case C-393/14)

2014/C 372/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dalmine SpA

Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

| 1) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

| 2) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

| 3) | Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

| 4) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 5) | Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

| 6) | Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC? |
| --- | --- |

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

(2)  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).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-394/14)

2014/C 372/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

| 2. | If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

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

3.

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

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2014 — Vodafone GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-395/14)

2014/C 372/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Is Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority which has required an operator with significant market power to provide mobile call termination services and has made the fees charged for this subject to authorisation in compliance with the procedure laid down in the aforementioned provision of the directive is required to carry out the procedure under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC again before each authorisation of fees specifically requested?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

---

General Court

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 — Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission

(Case T-471/11) (1)

((Competition - Concentrations - Book publishing market - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Decision approving the purchaser of the assets sold - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Breach of Article 266 TFEU - Failure to comply with the commitments imposed by the conditional clearance decision - Distinction between conditions and obligations - Principle of non-retroactivity - Assessment of the prospective purchaser - Purchaser’s independence from the seller - Misuse of power - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 372/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented initially by O. Fréget, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, then by O. Fréget, L. Eskenazi and D. Béranger and lastly by O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, O. Beynet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Lagardère SCA (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure, J.-B. Pinçon and L. Bary, lawyers); and Wendel (Paris) (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon and A. Gosset-Grainville, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 3503 of 13 May 2011, adopted in Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP following the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission (T-452/04, ECR, EU:T:2010:385), by which the Commission once again approved Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold pursuant to the commitments attached to the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration Lagardère/Natexis/VUP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — MasterCard and Others v Commission

(Case T-516/11) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods - Documents drawn up by a third party - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party))

2014/C 372/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); MasterCard International, Inc., (New York, New York, United States); and MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented initially by B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, and subsequently by B. Amory and V. Brophy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 July 2011 refusing the applicants access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 12 July 2011 refusing MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc. and MasterCard Europe access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to:






  — | costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods (inception report of 2 June 2009); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 12 July 2011 refusing MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc. and MasterCard Europe access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to:

—

costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods (inception report of 2 June 2009);

| — | costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — part 1 of the methodology report of 28 September 2009 [revised version incorporating comments received from stakeholders and the Competition Directorate-General (DG) of the European Commission]; |
| --- | --- |

—

costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — part 1 of the methodology report of 28 September 2009 [revised version incorporating comments received from stakeholders and the Competition Directorate-General (DG) of the European Commission];

| — | in-depth interview test results on costs of payments: analyses of the in-depth interviews held in the Netherlands, Hungary and the United Kingdom, 15 January 2010 (version provided on 9 March 2010); |
| --- | --- |

—

in-depth interview test results on costs of payments: analyses of the in-depth interviews held in the Netherlands, Hungary and the United Kingdom, 15 January 2010 (version provided on 9 March 2010);

| — | draft online questionnaire, 8 March 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

draft online questionnaire, 8 March 2010;

| — | results and conclusions of the internet feasibility test: draft report, 24 May 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

results and conclusions of the internet feasibility test: draft report, 24 May 2010;

| 2) | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratórios Delta (DELTA)

(Case T-218/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DELTA - Earlier national and international figurative marks DELTA PORTUGAL and company name LABORATORIOS DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 372/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micrus Endovascular LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Laboratórios Delta Lda (Queluz, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2012 (Case R 244/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratórios Delta Lda and Micrus Endovascular Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Micrus Endovascular LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Micrus Endovascular LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission

(Case T-461/12) (1)

((State aid - Airport charges - Lübeck Airport - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU - Article 107(1) TFEU - Manifest error of assessment - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))

2014/C 372/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hansestadt Lübeck (Germany) successor in title to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, J. Dammann de Chapto and T. Becker, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule of charges of Lübeck airport (Germany) adopted in 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006;

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

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuit)

(Case T-494/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a broken cookie - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

2014/C 372/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Biscuits Poult SAS (Montauban, France) (represented by: C. Chapoullié, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banketbakkerij Merba BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Abello, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2012 (Case R 914/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Banketbakkerij Merba BV and Biscuits Poult SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Biscuits Poult SAS to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Banketbakkerij Merba BV. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Biscuits Poult SAS to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Banketbakkerij Merba BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — STAR (STAR)

(Case T-199/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark STAR - Earlier international figurative mark STAR LODI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 372/21

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: DTM Ricambi Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: V. Catelli and A. Loffredo, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Società trasporti automobilistici regionali SpA (STAR) (Lodi, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2013 (Case R 0124/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Società trasporti automobilistici regionali SpA (STAR) and DTM Ricambi Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DTM Ricambi Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DTM Ricambi Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/17

---

Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-555/14)

2014/C 372/22

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 May 2014 (C(2014)3271 final) on the suspension of interim payments within the framework of the operational programme of support for Estonia from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the 2007-2013 programme period; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 May 2014 (C(2014)3271 final) on the suspension of interim payments within the framework of the operational programme of support for Estonia from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the 2007-2013 programme period;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied Articles 25(2) and 89 of Regulation No 1198/2006 (1) wrongly.
  The applicant claims that the interpretation the Commission gave to Article 25, according to which support for investments is justified only if the relevant technical indicators of a vessel are improved by means of them, so that the improvement goes beyond restoring the original condition of the vessel, does not correspond to the wording, meaning or objectives of that article. The wording of Article 25(2) leaves a broad discretion as to what sort of investments may be supported within the framework of the EFF. Since the applicant complied with the provisions of Article 25(2), the application of Article 89 and the suspension of interim payments for supporting the first priority axis of the operational programme are also inappropriate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied Articles 25(2) and 89 of Regulation No 1198/2006 (1) wrongly.

The applicant claims that the interpretation the Commission gave to Article 25, according to which support for investments is justified only if the relevant technical indicators of a vessel are improved by means of them, so that the improvement goes beyond restoring the original condition of the vessel, does not correspond to the wording, meaning or objectives of that article. The wording of Article 25(2) leaves a broad discretion as to what sort of investments may be supported within the framework of the EFF. Since the applicant complied with the provisions of Article 25(2), the application of Article 89 and the suspension of interim payments for supporting the first priority axis of the operational programme are also inappropriate.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006.
  The applicant criticises the Commission for not taking a decision on suspension of payments within six months from the notification of interruption of interim payments. According to the applicant, the Commission thereby infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006 and contradicted its own guidelines concerning the interruption, suspension and financial correction of interim payments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006.

The applicant criticises the Commission for not taking a decision on suspension of payments within six months from the notification of interruption of interim payments. According to the applicant, the Commission thereby infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006 and contradicted its own guidelines concerning the interruption, suspension and financial correction of interim payments.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration.
  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration by adopting the contested decision, since (1) it did not assess carefully or take into account all the information provided by the applicant, (2) it did not check whether all the assumptions used in making its decision were correct, (3) it automatically treated all investments which were carried out for bringing amortised vessels into a better condition as routine maintenance, and (4) it wrongly assessed that those investments did not contribute to attaining the objectives laid down in Article 25(2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration by adopting the contested decision, since (1) it did not assess carefully or take into account all the information provided by the applicant, (2) it did not check whether all the assumptions used in making its decision were correct, (3) it automatically treated all investments which were carried out for bringing amortised vessels into a better condition as routine maintenance, and (4) it wrongly assessed that those investments did not contribute to attaining the objectives laid down in Article 25(2).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
  The applicant claims that, regardless of the position which was clearly and precisely expressed in the Commission’s letter and thus gave rise to a legitimate expectation, according to which expenditure on renovating/repairing an engine may be covered by Article 25(2) of Regulation No 1198/2006 if the vessel’s fishing ability is not increased thereby, the Commission later decided that such expenditures does not contribute to improving the technical indicators of any vessel, but rather to restoring or preserving the original condition of fishing vessels, and are therefore ineligible for aid. The applicant claims that it was not aware of the latter approach; it could not be deduced from Article 25 of Regulation No 1198/2006 or from the Commission’s letter in reply to the corresponding question asked by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

The applicant claims that, regardless of the position which was clearly and precisely expressed in the Commission’s letter and thus gave rise to a legitimate expectation, according to which expenditure on renovating/repairing an engine may be covered by Article 25(2) of Regulation No 1198/2006 if the vessel’s fishing ability is not increased thereby, the Commission later decided that such expenditures does not contribute to improving the technical indicators of any vessel, but rather to restoring or preserving the original condition of fishing vessels, and are therefore ineligible for aid. The applicant claims that it was not aware of the latter approach; it could not be deduced from Article 25 of Regulation No 1198/2006 or from the Commission’s letter in reply to the corresponding question asked by the applicant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty.
  The applicant considers that the circumstance that the Commission makes a final decision on suspension of an application for an interim payment after more than three years have passed from the interruption of the first application for an interim payment, thereby failing to comply with the six-month period laid down in Article 88(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006, clearly conflicts with the principle of legal certainty. Such conduct by the Commission could not in any way have been foreseen by the recipients of support from the EFF. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty.

The applicant considers that the circumstance that the Commission makes a final decision on suspension of an application for an interim payment after more than three years have passed from the interruption of the first application for an interim payment, thereby failing to comply with the six-month period laid down in Article 88(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006, clearly conflicts with the principle of legal certainty. Such conduct by the Commission could not in any way have been foreseen by the recipients of support from the EFF.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2006 L 223, p. 1).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/18

---

Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

(Case T-567/14)

2014/C 372/23

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Group OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Dragia Dragiev and Andrey Andreev, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kosta Iliev (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Zlatarevi Patent and Trade Mark Bureau)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision R 1587/2013-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 on the basis of Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision R 1587/2013-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 on the basis of Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | order OHIM and, in the case of its intervention in the proceedings before the Court, the party concerned to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and, in the case of its intervention in the proceedings before the Court, the party concerned to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kosta Iliev.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark with the word elements ‘GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL’ for goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: unregistered trade mark comprising substantive rights over a sign with the word elements ‘Group company’.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the content of the Bulgarian law was incorrectly examined of the Board’s own motion); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the content of the Bulgarian law was incorrectly examined of the Board’s own motion);

| — | Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (there was no comprehensive and correct evaluation of the evidence submitted); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (there was no comprehensive and correct evaluation of the evidence submitted);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the evidence submitted and legal arguments were not examined in relation to the conditions laid down in that provision). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the evidence submitted and legal arguments were not examined in relation to the conditions laid down in that provision).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/19

---

Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-585/14)

2014/C 372/24

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, State Attorney)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision contained in the letter from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Budget, No. BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918, of 2 June 2014 in which, first, the applicant is declared to be financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the EU budget, because sugar was imported outside the system of tariff import quotas and that the resources for that importation were not determined and in which, second, the applicant is ordered to make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources amounting, in the event that the import licence was used to its fullest extent, to EUR 1 2 57  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision contained in the letter from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Budget, No. BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918, of 2 June 2014 in which, first, the applicant is declared to be financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the EU budget, because sugar was imported outside the system of tariff import quotas and that the resources for that importation were not determined and in which, second, the applicant is ordered to make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources amounting, in the event that the import licence was used to its fullest extent, to EUR 1 2 57  000;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea: manifest error of assessment






  — | The Commission wrongly found, in the contested decision contained in the letter, that the loss of traditional own resources is due to the mistakes made by the importer in its application for the issue of an import licence and that the Slovenian authorities did not discover those mistakes in time. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea: manifest error of assessment

—

The Commission wrongly found, in the contested decision contained in the letter, that the loss of traditional own resources is due to the mistakes made by the importer in its application for the issue of an import licence and that the Slovenian authorities did not discover those mistakes in time.

| — | The importer did indeed complete and correct its application in time and the errors occurred, in fact, in the recording of the data when the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Agricultural Market and Rural Development transmitted the applications for the issue of an import licence in the Commission’s AMIS-Quota application, which was entirely the result of serious defects in the AMIS-Quota system. |
| --- | --- |

—

The importer did indeed complete and correct its application in time and the errors occurred, in fact, in the recording of the data when the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Agricultural Market and Rural Development transmitted the applications for the issue of an import licence in the Commission’s AMIS-Quota application, which was entirely the result of serious defects in the AMIS-Quota system.

| 2. | Second plea: breach of the rules concerning the Commission’s decision-making procedures






  — | The letter containing the contested decision was signed by the Director of the Directorate General for Budget, even though it is the Commission, acting as a collegial body, which is competent to decide on the applicant’s financial responsibility for the loss of the EU’s traditional own resources. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: breach of the rules concerning the Commission’s decision-making procedures

—

The letter containing the contested decision was signed by the Director of the Directorate General for Budget, even though it is the Commission, acting as a collegial body, which is competent to decide on the applicant’s financial responsibility for the loss of the EU’s traditional own resources.

| 3. | Third plea: inadequate statement of reasons and incorrect legal basis






  — | The Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision in respect of the applicant’s financial responsibility with the result that it is not possible to check if it is correct and consistent with substantive law, thereby breaching Article 296 TFEU and the Commission’s internal procedural rules. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea: inadequate statement of reasons and incorrect legal basis

—

The Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision in respect of the applicant’s financial responsibility with the result that it is not possible to check if it is correct and consistent with substantive law, thereby breaching Article 296 TFEU and the Commission’s internal procedural rules.

| — | The Commission, moreover, did not provide an adequate legal basis to justify its decision that there was, in this case, a loss of traditional own resources and that the applicant would be financially responsible for such a loss. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission, moreover, did not provide an adequate legal basis to justify its decision that there was, in this case, a loss of traditional own resources and that the applicant would be financially responsible for such a loss.

| 4. | Fourth plea: infringement of the rights of defence and the right to be heard






  — | The Commission did not inform the applicant, prior to the adoption of the contested decision, of all the elements of fact and law on which its decision is based, thereby infringing the principles of the rights of defence and the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea: infringement of the rights of defence and the right to be heard

—

The Commission did not inform the applicant, prior to the adoption of the contested decision, of all the elements of fact and law on which its decision is based, thereby infringing the principles of the rights of defence and the right to be heard.

| 5. | Fifth plea: the Commission’s failure of inspection






  — | The applicant’s error in the communication concerning the application for issue of an import licence is a consequence of defects in the AMIS-quota electronic information system, which the Commission created and manages; accordingly the applicant is not responsible for the error made. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea: the Commission’s failure of inspection

—

The applicant’s error in the communication concerning the application for issue of an import licence is a consequence of defects in the AMIS-quota electronic information system, which the Commission created and manages; accordingly the applicant is not responsible for the error made.

| 6. | Sixth plea: infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the avoidance of unjust enrichment






  — | The applicant contends that, in view of the fact that no loss of traditional own resources was proven, the imposition of financial responsibility for an error when encoding the data in the Commission’s defective computer system means that the EU will be unjustly enriched. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea: infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the avoidance of unjust enrichment

—

The applicant contends that, in view of the fact that no loss of traditional own resources was proven, the imposition of financial responsibility for an error when encoding the data in the Commission’s defective computer system means that the EU will be unjustly enriched.

| — | Moreover, the principle of legal certainty was infringed because there is no procedure for correcting mistakes for situations in which unjust enrichment may occur. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the principle of legal certainty was infringed because there is no procedure for correcting mistakes for situations in which unjust enrichment may occur.

| — | The applicant further argues that the legislation under which it is not possible to correct administrative errors committed in the context of a procedure for issuing import licences even though no market operator suffers a loss as a result of the error being corrected — and which results in the Member State becoming as a matter of course financially responsible — is also contrary to the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further argues that the legislation under which it is not possible to correct administrative errors committed in the context of a procedure for issuing import licences even though no market operator suffers a loss as a result of the error being corrected — and which results in the Member State becoming as a matter of course financially responsible — is also contrary to the principle of proportionality.

| — | The Commission, by failing to bring to a close, within a reasonable period, the procedure for determining the applicant’s financial responsibility, also infringed the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission, by failing to bring to a close, within a reasonable period, the procedure for determining the applicant’s financial responsibility, also infringed the principle of legitimate expectations.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/20

---

Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

(Case T-586/14)

2014/C 372/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, as far as it applies to Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, as far as it applies to Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; and

| — | Order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law in considering that the applicant’s production costs and financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, third indent. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law in considering that the applicant’s production costs and financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, third indent.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and failed to adduce consistent evidence in deducting from the applicant’s export price a sales agent commission equivalent to the mark-up charged to the applicant by a related company in Hong Kong, without adducing adequate evidence that this related company was indeed operating as a commission-based agent, in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and failed to adduce consistent evidence in deducting from the applicant’s export price a sales agent commission equivalent to the mark-up charged to the applicant by a related company in Hong Kong, without adducing adequate evidence that this related company was indeed operating as a commission-based agent, in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not calculate the applicant’s export price on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold to the EU, nor is it based on the price at which the exported product is first resold to an independent buyer in the EU, in breach of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not calculate the applicant’s export price on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold to the EU, nor is it based on the price at which the exported product is first resold to an independent buyer in the EU, in breach of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the essential facts and evidences making it possible to understand how it calculated the applicant’s dumping and injury margins, in breach of Article 20 of the basic Regulation and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the essential facts and evidences making it possible to understand how it calculated the applicant’s dumping and injury margins, in breach of Article 20 of the basic Regulation and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 142, p. 1).

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/21

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-597/14)

2014/C 372/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet D’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00  000. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00  000.

| — | order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants;

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

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on 3 pleas in law that are in essence identical or similar to those relied on Case T-592/14, Makhlouf v Council.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/22

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-602/14)

2014/C 372/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Corent d’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, to the extent that they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

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

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/22

---

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of a crest)

(Case T-615/14)

2014/C 372/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64  354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64  354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a crest for goods and services in classes 16, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 64  354.

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law:

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/23

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — ANKO v Commission and REA

(Case T-165/14) (1)

2014/C 372/29

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

---