2013/C 164/01

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

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

Past publications

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013

OJ C 141, 18.5.2013

OJ C 129, 4.5.2013

OJ C 123, 27.4.2013

OJ C 114, 20.4.2013

OJ C 108, 13.4.2013

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-625/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructure manager - Article 11 - Absence of a performance scheme - Incomplete transposition)

2013/C 164/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, M. Perrot and S. Menez, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 6(2) to (5), 14(2) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA

(Case C-103/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC - Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community - Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute - Jurisdiction of the Community Courts)

2013/C 164/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, E. Montaguti and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Berenboom, avocaat, and M. Isgour, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. De Boissieu, avocats)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission, concerning an action for damages in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants at first instance as a result of unlawful conduct which occurred following a Commission invitation to tender concerning the maintenance and linguistic strengthening of its system of automatic translation — Erroneous assessment and contradictions concerning the non-contractual nature of the dispute — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Disregard of the rules concerning the taking of evidence — Manifest error of assessment regarding the sufficiently serious nature of the breach constituted by the Commission’s supposed fault — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV

(Case C-202/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch - Cross-border employment contract - Restriction - Disproportionate)

2013/C 164/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton Las

Defendant: PSA Antwerp NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Art. 39 EC (now Art. 45 TFEU) — Belgian regional legislation imposing an obligation on an undertaking established in the Dutch language region to draft, on pain of nullity, all documents relating to an employment relationship with an international character in Dutch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which requires all employers whose established place of business is located in that entity’s territory to draft cross-border employment contracts exclusively in the official language of that federated entity, failing which the contracts are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 — Kingdom of Spain and Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-274/11 and C-295/11) (1)

(Unitary patent - Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU - Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers and infringement of the Treaties - Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU - Non-exclusive competence - Decision adopted ‘as a last resort’ - Preserving the interests of the Union)

2013/C 164/05

Language of the case: Spanish and Italian

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of Kingdom of Spain: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of Italian Republic: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and K. Pellinghelli, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Kemper, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by N.J. Travers, BL), French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents), Hungary, represented by: M. Z. Fehér and K. Molnár, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Ree, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, E. Gromnicka and M. Laszuk, Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, Agent, assisted by T. Mitcheson, Barrister), European Parliament (represented by: I. Díez Parra, G. Ricci and M. Dean, Agents), European Commission, (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders, F. Bulst and L. Prete, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53) Misuse of powers — Failure to respect the judicial system of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — L v M

(Case C-463/11) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(4) and (5) - Determination of the type of plans likely to have significant environmental effects - Building plan ‘for development within an urban area’ exempted from an environmental assessment under national legislation - Incorrect assessment of the qualitative condition of ‘inner city development’ - No effect on the legal validity of the building plan - Effectiveness of the directive undermined)

2013/C 164/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: M

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 3(4) and (5), of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Scope — National legislation providing for an accelerated procedure not including an environmental impact assessment for the adoption of development plans relating to small areas at local level which meet certain qualitative and quantitative — Incorrect assessment of the qualitative criteria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, read in conjunction with Article 3(4) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which breach of a qualitative condition, imposed by the implementing provision of that directive to exempt the adoption of a particular type of building plan from an environmental assessment under that directive, is irrelevant to the legal validity of that plan.

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-548/11) (1)

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 1(r) - Definition of ‘periods of insurance’ - Article 46 - Calculation of retirement pension - Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration - Frontier workers - Period of incapacity for work - Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States - No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance - Residence requirement - Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)

2013/C 164/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edgard Mulders

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1(r) and 46 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Old-age and death insurance — Calculation of benefits — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(r) and 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in the light of Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation and Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU, are to be interpreted, for the purpose of calculating a retirement pension in one Member State, as precluding the legislation of another Member State under which a period of incapacity for work during which sickness insurance benefit — from which contributions were deducted by way of old-age insurance — was paid in that other Member State to a migrant worker is not regarded as a ‘period of insurance’ within the meaning of those provisions, on the ground that the person concerned is not resident in the latter State and/or was in receipt of a similar benefit under the legislation of the first Member State, which could not be combined with the sickness insurance benefit.

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-565/11) (1)

(Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law - National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax - Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax - Non-compliance with European Union law - Principle of effectiveness)

2013/C 164/08

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mariana Irimie

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Sibiu — Interpretation of the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality, and of Article 6 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to restrict the amount which may be obtained by way of compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of the breach of European Union law by a Member State — Reimbursement of statutory interest relating to a tax refund

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as precluding a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the interest granted on repayment of a tax which was levied in breach of European Union law to that accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of that tax.

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-595/11) (1)

(Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps - Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation - Product concerned - Scope)

2013/C 164/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Steinel Vertrieb GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 of 1 September 2006 (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1) — Applicability of those regulations to compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines, cover all products bearing the same essential characteristics as those referred to in Article 1 of those regulations and which also fall within heading ex 8539 31 90 of the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000. It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case for the products at issue in spite of the addition of a twilight switch, or whether the products at issue constitute different products on the ground that they bear additional characteristics which are not referred to in those regulations.

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

(Case C-12/12) (1)

(Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 15(1) - Definition of ‘genuine use’ - Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with another mark)

2013/C 164/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Colloseum Holding AG

Respondent: Levi Strauss & Co.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of ‘use of a trade mark’ — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark forming part of a composite mark where the composite mark is used — Recognition of the existence of use of a trade mark where it is used only together with another mark, the two marks being registered both individually and together as a composite mark

Operative part of the judgment

The condition of genuine use of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, may be satisfied where a registered trade mark, which has become distinctive as a result of the use of another composite mark of which it constitutes one of the elements, is used only through that other composite mark, or where it is used only in conjunction with another mark, and the combination of those two marks is, furthermore, itself registered as a trade mark.

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Meliha Veli Mustafa v Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

(Case C-247/12) (1)

(Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Directive 2002/74/EC - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Obligation to provide a guarantee for employees’ claims - Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arising before the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register of companies - Decision to open the insolvency proceedings - Effects - Continuation of the employer’s activity)

2013/C 164/11

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meliha Veli Mustafa

Defendant: Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad — Interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Obligation on the Member States to provide for guarantees not only for employees’ salary claims existing at the time of the opening of the insolvency proceedings of the employer but also for claims that may arise at each stage of the insolvency proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to provide guarantees for employees’ claims at every stage of the insolvency proceedings of their employer. In particular, it does not preclude Member States from providing a guarantee only for employees’ claims arising before the entry of the decision to open insolvency proceedings in the register of companies, even though that decision does not order the termination of the employer’s activities.

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 February 2013 — GSV Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-74/13)

2013/C 164/12

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GSV Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Questions referred

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 43, p. 9).

Appeal brought on 1 March 2013 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11 Germany v Commission

(Case C-102/13 P)

2013/C 164/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal has been brought against the order of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2012 in Case T-205/11, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Federal Republic of Gemany for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C-7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany (Sanierungsklausel).

The Federal Government’s appeal is based on two grounds of appeal, each of which concerns a complaint as to insufficient reasoning:

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

(Case C-119/13)

2013/C 164/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk

(Case C-120/13)

2013/C 164/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H.

Defendant: Tetyana Bonchyk

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

(Case C-121/13)

2013/C 164/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft

Defendant: Xceed Holding Ltd.

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-126/13 P)

2013/C 164/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the Court of Justice should:

Grounds of Appeal and main arguments1

This appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11, by which the General Court rejected the action brought by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in which the application for registration of the mark ecoDoor was partially rejected on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

The appellant basis its appeal on the following ground of appeal:

It claims that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 has been infringed since the mark ecoDoor — which is not at all descriptive of the goods rejected by OHM, but, at best, only of part of those goods, namely a door — can be regarded as descriptive of the relevant goods only if the relevant part is so important for the goods that it would be automatically associated, in trade, with them. This is the case only where, in the eyes of consumers, the relevant part plays a fundamental role in the goods. This is not the case for a door which forms part of the goods applied for, with the result that registration cannot be precluded on the basis of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

(Case C-132/13)

2013/C 164/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Question referred

Are Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II, IV and III to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1) to be interpreted in such a way that housings as a component of multipole connectors for industrial purposes are not to have a ‘CE’ marking affixed to them?

(1)  OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Hamidullah Rajaby v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-158/13)

2013/C 164/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hamidullah Rajaby

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

(Case C-166/13)

2013/C 164/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Melun

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophie Mukarubega

Defendants: Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

Questions referred

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers

(Case C-167/13)

2013/C 164/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean Devillers

Question referred

Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and Annex I thereto, Chapter I, entitled ‘Fitness for transport’, (1) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which provide that in cases of doubt veterinary advice is to be sought regarding the fitness for transport of an injured animal and, more specifically, regarding the assessment of the additional suffering that the transport would cause, be interpreted as precluding Article 11(4) of the Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport, (2) which allows the transport of an injured animal only where that transport does not cause unnecessary suffering?

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).

(2)  Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport and the conditions of registration of transporters and certification of traders, starting points and assembly centres (Moniteur belge, 2 September 1999, p. 32437).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

(Case C-189/13)

2013/C 164/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raquel Gianni Da Silva

Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Question referred

Does European Union law preclude national legislation under which illegal entry by a third-country national who has not been subjected to the coercive measures provided for in Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment? (1)

(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).

Action brought on 17 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-203/13)

2013/C 164/23

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the adoption of measures to transpose the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-32/08) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for a website - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Selection criteria and award criteria - Non-contractual liability)

2013/C 164/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders for a market analysis in view of developing a new approach for the ‘Environment for Young Europeans’ website and, secondly, for compensation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamiand Others v Commission

(Case T-526/10) (1)

(Trade in seal products - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Detailed rules for implementation - Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 - Prohibition on placing such products on the market - Exception in favour of Inuit communities - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Subsidiarity - Proportionality - Misuse of powers)

2013/C 164/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada); Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada); Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada); Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq); David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada); Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada); Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada); Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc. (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada); Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs, Inc. (Catalina, Canada); GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway); Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland) (Nuuk, Groenland, Denmark); Johannes Egede (Nuuk); Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk); William E. Scott & Son (Edinburgh, United Kingdom), Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (Cap-aux-Meules); Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Ltd Șirketi (Istanbul, Turkey); Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society, Ltd (Fleur de Lys, Canada) (represented by J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, P. Oliver and K. Mifsud Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant before the General Court: European Parliament (represented: initially by I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, and subsequently by L. Visaggio and D. Gauci, acting as Agents); and by the Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010, laying the detailed rules of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sale of seal products (OJ L 216, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gbagbo v Council

(Case T-119/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Alteration of heads of claim - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Rights of the defence - Right to property)

2013/C 164/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Simone Gbagbo (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

Re:

Initially, an application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council

(Case T-130/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 164/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented: initially by G. Collard then S. Zokou, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)

(Case T-284/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark METROINVEST - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Principle of non-discrimination - Right to a fair hearing)

2013/C 164/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, P. Craddock and B. Vanbrabant, lawyers)

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: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Berger, R. Kaase and J. C. Plate, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Case R 954/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device)

(Case T-55/12) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cleaning device - Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge - Declaration of invalidity)

2013/C 164/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2011 (Case R 2179/2010-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between AM Denmark A/S and Su-Shan Chen

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO)

(Case T-145/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ECO PRO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 164/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2012 (Case R 1418/2011-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign ECO PRO

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)

(Case T-474/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Annulment of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 164/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Las Condes, Santiago, Chili)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2011 (Case R 637/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG and Viñedos Emiliana, SA.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council

(Case T-28/12) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Adoption of a new regulation - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 164/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Kabil-Batam, Indonesia); Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd, (Singapore, Singapore); and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (Dessau-Roβlau, Germany) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-124/13)

2013/C 164/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission

(Case T-174/13 P)

2013/C 164/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: BO (Amman, Jordan)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 19 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of disease and of point 2.5 of Chapter 12, entitled ‘Transport costs’, of Title II of the Commission Decision of 2 July 2007 laying down general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the CST failed to have regard to the strict nature of the exclusion of reimbursement of transport costs laid down by that latter provision.

Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council

(Case T-182/13)

2013/C 164/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Moallem Insurance Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

Action brought on 3 April 2013 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission

(Case T-189/13)

2013/C 164/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Ambrosius, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)

Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission

(Case T-201/13)

2013/C 164/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rubinum SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims in essence as follows:

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 29).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Portugal Telecom v Commission

(Case T-208/13)

2013/C 164/38

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and R. Bordalo Junqueiro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

It was found in the contested decision that Portugal Telecom and Telefónica S.A. infringed Article 101 TFEU in inserting a clause 9 in the agreement by which Telefónica S.A acquired a block of shares from Portugal Telecom in Brasilcel NV. The Commission interpreted that clause as a no-competition agreement independent of the transaction at issue.

In support of its action, Portugal Telecom relies on two pleas in law.

Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Ferracci v Commission

(Case T-219/13)

2013/C 164/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Ferracci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action contests Commission Decision C(2012) 9461 final of 19 December 2012 declaring the aid granted, on the basis of the exemption from the municipal tax on real estate (ICI), to non-commercial entities for the pursuit of certain activities to be incompatible with the common market, without ordering the recovery of that aid, and declaring that the favourable treatment granted to the Church and to some sports clubs through Article 149 of the Testo unico delle imposte sul reddito (TUIR) (Codified Law on Income Tax), as well as the exemption from the IMU (Imposta Municipale Propria: the Municipality’s own tax) granted to some entities for the pursuit of specific activities, does not constitute State aid.

In support of his action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.

Action brought on 15 April 2013 — B&S Europe v Commission

(Case T-222/13)

2013/C 164/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Business and Strategies in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Bihain, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission

(Case T-353/08) (1)

2013/C 164/41

Language of the case: German

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

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

(Case T-520/10) (1)

2013/C 164/42

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (SANISSIMO)

(Case T-485/12) (1)

2013/C 164/43

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.