2012/C 379/01

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

OJ C 373, 1.12.2012

Past publications

OJ C 366, 24.11.2012

OJ C 355, 17.11.2012

OJ C 343, 10.11.2012

OJ C 331, 27.10.2012

OJ C 319, 20.10.2012

OJ C 311, 13.10.2012

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-301/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Annex I(A) and (B))

2012/C 379/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, A.-A. Gilly and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, D. Anderson QC, and S. Ford and B. McGurk, Barristers)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and (2), 4(1) and (3) and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) and of Annex I(A) and (B) thereto — Failure to have ensured the appropriate treatment of urban waste water from several parts of London (Whitburn, Beckton, Crossness and Mogden)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — Hungary v Slovak Republic

(Case C-364/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 259 TFEU - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right to move within the territory of the Member States - President of Hungary - Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic - Diplomatic relations between Member States)

2012/C 379/03

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and E. Orgován, Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Maidani and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Re:

Article 259 TFEU — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 18(1) EC, Article 3(2) TEU, Article 21(1) TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Abusive application of European Union law — Prohibition on entering the territory of the Slovak Republic imposed on the President of Hungary when intending to take up the invitation made by a social organisation — Prohibition on entry based, in part, on Directive 2004/38/EC — Application of the provisions of European Union law on the free movement of persons to Heads of State and to other persons representing the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Elenca Srl v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-385/10) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect - Internal liners in flues and chimney pipes - Lack of CE conformity marking - Marketing precluded)

2012/C 379/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elenca Srl

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4(2), 5 and 6 of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12) — Products not covered by harmonised standards as provided for in the directive — National rules that preclude the marketing of plastic internal flue or chimney pipe linings not bearing EC marking

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-498/10) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Fiscal legislation - Obligation on the recipient of a service, established in the national territory, to withhold at source the wages tax on the remuneration due to a service provider established in another Member State - No such obligation in respect of a service provider established in the same Member State)

2012/C 379/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X NV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Withholding at source of tax on remuneration which has to be applied by the recipient of a provision of services, established on the national territory, to remuneration due to a service provider having its seat in another Member State — No such obligation in the case of a service provider having its seat in the same Member State

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — State Secretary van Justitie v Mangat Singh

(Case C-502/10) (1)

(Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Scope - Article 3(2)(e) - Residence based on a formally limited permit)

2012/C 379/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendant: Mangat Singh

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Concept of a ‘formally limited residence permit’ — Residence permit not offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration, but which can be extended indefinitely

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(e) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘residence permit [which] has been formally limited’ does not include a fixed-period residence permit, granted to a specific group of persons, the validity of which may be extended indefinitely without however offering any prospect of a residence permit of indefinite duration where such a formal limitation does not prevent the long-term residence of the third country national in the Member State concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — United States of America v Christine Nolan

(Case C-583/10) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Protection of workers - Collective redundancies - Scope - Closure of an American military base - Information and consultation of workers - Time at which the consultation obligation arises - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2012/C 379/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United States of America

Defendant: Christine Nolan

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Employer’s obligation to inform and consult the workers’ representatives — Determination of the time at which that obligation arises

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), by decision of 6 December 2010.

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Pelati d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-603/10) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - National legislation under which authorisation must be obtained for the grant of tax advantages - Application for authorisation to be made at least 30 days before the proposed operation is effected)

2012/C 379/08

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pelati d.o.o.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Interpretation of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax advantages in connection with division — National legislation setting a time-limit for submitting applications for those advantages — Refusal of the tax advantages in question because of non-compliance with the time-limit — Compatibility of the refusal with the directive in question

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of the tax advantages applicable to a division in accordance with that directive is subject to the condition that the application relating to that operation is submitted within a specified period. However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the details of the implementation of that period, and more particularly the determination of its starting-point of the period, are sufficiently precise, clear and foreseeable to enable taxpayers to ascertain their rights and to ensure that they are in a position to enjoy the tax advantages provided for by that directive.

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-614/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/46/EC - Processing of personal data and free movement of such data - Protection of natural persons - Article 28(1) - National supervisory authority - Independence - Supervisory authority and the Federal Chancellery - Personal and organisational links)

2012/C 379/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and B.R. Killmann, Agents,)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Kranenborg, I. Chatelier and H. Hijmans, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second subparagraph of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Obligation for the Member States to ensure that the national supervisory authorities responsible for supervising the processing of personal data exercise their duties entirely independently — Close personal and organisational connections between the supervisory authority and the Federal Chancellor’s Office (Bundeskanzleramt) — Subjection of the supervisory authority to the supervision of the Federal Chancellor

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-37/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Regulation No 1234/2007 - Article 115 - Annex XV - Point I(2) - Appendix to Annex XV - Part A - Sales designations ‘butter’ and ‘dairy spread’ - Sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread) - List of derogations)

2012/C 379/10

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), in conjunction with point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and part A of the appendix to that annex — Legislation of a Member State authorising the marketing of a product corresponding to the sales designation ‘dairy spread’ under the sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA

(Joined Cases C-101/11 P and C-102/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community design - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 6, 25(1)(b) and (e), and 61 - Registered Community design or model representing a seated figure - Earlier Community figurative mark - Different overall impression - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Scope of judicial review - No statement of reasons)

2012/C 379/11

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel (represented by: S. Miguez Pereira, abogada), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, abogado)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Case T-513/09 Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (seated figure), by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG

(Case C-173/11) (1)

(Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Article 7 - Sui generis right - Database relating to football league matches in progress - Concept of re-utilisation - Localisation of the act of re-utilisation)

2012/C 379/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd

Defendant: Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), in particular Article 7 — Right of the maker of a database to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of part of the contents of the database — Concepts of extraction and re-utilisation (Article 7(2) of the directive) — Database containing information on football matches in progress (‘Football Live’)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that the sending by one person, by means of a web server located in Member State A, of data previously uploaded by that person from a database protected by the sui generis right under that directive to the computer of another person located in Member State B, at that person’s request, for the purpose of storage in that computer’s memory and display on its screen, constitutes an act of ‘re-utilisation’ of the data by the person sending it. That act takes place, at least, in Member State B, where there is evidence from which it may be concluded that the act discloses an intention on the part of the person performing the act to target members of the public in Member State B, which is for the national court to assess.

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Észak-dunántúli Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (Édukövízig), Hochtief Construction AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe, now Hochtief Solutions AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-218/11) (1)

(Directive 2004/18/EC - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Articles 44(2) and 47(1)(b), (2) and (5) - Economic and financial standing of tenderers - Minimum capacity established on the basis of a single accounting indicator - Accounting indicator liable to be influenced by divergences between national laws as regards annual company accounts)

2012/C 379/13

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Észak-dunántúli Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (Édukövízig), Hochtief Construction AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe, now Hochtief Solutions AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe

Defendant: Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Intervening parties: Vegyépszer Építő és Szerelő Zrt, MÁVÉPCELL Kft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítelőtábla — Interpretation of Articles 44(2), 47(1)(b), 47(3) and 47(5) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Examination of economic and financial standing of tenderers on the basis of a single accounting indicator with a different content in different Member States because of the divergences between national laws as regards accounting rules — Principle of equal treatment for tenderers

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad, Varna, Bulgaria) — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-234/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Contribution in kind - Destruction of property - New buildings - Adjustment)

2012/C 379/14

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad, Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TETS Haskovo AD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Requirements to adjust input VAT deducted on acquisition of property — National legislation providing for adjustment of input VAT deductions upon destruction of property — Destruction of buildings with sole aim of constructing in their place new buildings fulfilling the same purpose, and used for future supplies giving entitlement to deduction of input VAT

Operative part of the judgment

Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the destruction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of several buildings intended for energy production and their replacement by more modern buildings which fulfil the same purpose as the demolished buildings does not constitute a change, after the VAT return was made, in the factors used to determine the amount of VAT to be deducted as input tax, and, therefore, does not lead to an obligation to adjust the deduction made.

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Joined Cases C-302/11 to C-305/11) (1)

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - National Competition Authority - Stabilisation procedure - Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition - Determination of length of service - Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts - Principle of non-discrimination)

2012/C 379/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rosanna Valenza (C-302/11 and C-304/11), Maria Laura Altavista (C-303/11), Laura Marsella, Simonetta Schettini, Sabrina Tomassini (C-305/11)

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National legislation under which it is possible, in derogation from the principle that public officials must be recruited by means of an open competition, for the public administrative authorities to enter into permanent work contracts with workers who have been in the employ of those authorities under fixed-term contracts — No account taken of the length of service accrued on the basis of the earlier, fixed-term contract, even where there is no interruption of the employment relationship

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be understood as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely prohibits periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, unless that prohibition is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4). The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship does not constitute such an objective ground.

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-371/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Reference by domestic law to European Union law - Directive 90/435/EEC - Directive 90/434/EEC - Prevention of economic double taxation - Exception - Liquidation of a subsidiary upon a merger - Distribution of profits - Concept of ‘liquidation’)

2012/C 379/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Prevention of economic double taxation — Exception in respect of profits distributed when a subsidiary is liquidated — Concept of liquidation — Merger by acquisition whereby the subsidiary companies acquired are wound up without going into liquidation — Possibility, for the national tax authorities, of considering that such an operation entails liquidation, pursuant to national tax legislation which treats identically that operation and a merger which actually entails a liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘liquidation’ in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the dissolution of a company in the context of a merger by acquisition cannot be considered to be such a liquidation.

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-402/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 18(1) - Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible - Right to an effective legal remedy)

2012/C 379/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. — Infringement of Article 80(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to an effective legal remedy

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry v Office of Fair Trading

(Case C-428/11) (1)

(Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Practice of informing the consumer that he has won a prize and obliging him, in order to receive that prize, to incur a cost of whatever kind)

2012/C 379/18

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry

Defendant: Office of Fair Trading

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Annex I, paragraph 31, to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-business commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair — Practice whereby a consumer is informed that he has won a prize and various methods of claiming it are suggested to him that require him to incur a cost, which varies according to the method chosen

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 31, second indent, of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as prohibiting aggressive practices by which traders, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, give the false impression that the consumer has already won a prize, while the taking of any action in relation to claiming that prize, be it requesting information concerning the nature of that prize or taking possession of it, is subject to an obligation on the consumer to pay money or to incur any cost whatsoever;

It is irrelevant that the cost imposed on the consumer, such as the cost of a stamp, is de minimis compared with the value of the prize or that it does not procure the trader any benefit;

It is also irrelevant that the trader offers the consumer a number of methods by which he may claim the prize, at least one of which is free of charge, if, according to one or more of the proposed methods, the consumer would incur a cost in order to obtain information on the prize or how to acquire it;

It is for the national courts to assess the information provided to consumers in the light of recitals 18 and 19 in the preamble to Directive 2005/29 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof, that is to say, by taking into account whether that information is clear and can be understood by the public targeted by the practice.

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-525/11) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Conditions for the refund of the excess VAT - National legislation deferring the refund of part of the excess VAT pending examination of the taxable person’s annual tax return - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)

2012/C 379/19

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mednis SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input VAT — National legislation limiting monthly VAT refund — Deferment, until examination of annual tax return, of the refund of the part of overpaid VAT that exceeds 18 % of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out during the tax month in question

Operative part of the judgment

Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not authorising the tax authority of a Member State to defer, without undertaking a specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation, the refund of part of the excess VAT which has arisen during a one-month tax period, pending the examination by that authority of the taxable person’s annual tax return.

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

Order of the Court of 18 September 2012 — Omnicare Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Astellas Pharma GmbH

(Case C-588/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word sign ‘OMNICARE’ - Opposition - Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting the application - Action - Judgment of the General Court dismissing that action - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 379/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Omnicare Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Astellas Pharma GmbH (represented by: M.L. Polo Carreño, abogada)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09 Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE) in which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Class 42, for the annulment of Decision R 402/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 May 2009 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Notion of genuine use of an earlier mark — Mark used for services provided free of charge

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

(Case C-396/12)

2012/C 379/21

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren

Other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100.

(3)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

(4)  OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 11 September 2012 — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León

(Case C-413/12)

2012/C 379/22

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León

Questions referred

(1)  5 April 1993

OJ L 95, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

(Case C-416/12)

2012/C 379/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Wikom Elektrik GmbH

Defendant: VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

Question referred

Does the concept of communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) include the rebroadcasting, by wire, of a broadcast work in the case where the original broadcast can also be received by wireless means in the catchment area, the work is rebroadcast to the owners of reception equipment who receive the broadcast personally or within their own private or family circles, and the rebroadcasting is carried out for profit-making purposes by a broadcasting organisation other than the original one?

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Industrias Alen SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (Cloralex)

(Case C-422/12 P)

2012/C 379/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Industrias Alen SA de CV (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: The Clorox Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (1) on the Community trade mark (‘the CTMR’).

(1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 18 September 2012 — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

(Case C-424/12)

2012/C 379/25

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Fatorie SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

Questions referred

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

Action brought on 20 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-428/12)

2012/C 379/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martin and G. Wilms, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The requirement that, in order to obtain an ‘authorisation for the private, own-account transport of goods’, no more than five months must have elapsed since the first registration of the first vehicle of an undertaking’s fleet, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, in breach of Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That restriction is not justified either by one of the public interest grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or by an imperative requirement.

As regards the existence of a restriction of the free movement of goods, in practice the rules in question restrict to a greater extent the import of vehicles already registered in other Member States than the purchase of vehicles registered in Spain. In addition, given that vehicles registered in other Member States already satisfy the European and/or national technical requirements in order to be considered roadworthy in the Member States of origin, the abovementioned rules fail to have regard to the principle of mutual recognition, since a vehicle which is roadworthy in another Member State must also be roadworthy in Spain. Furthermore, the measure in question constitutes a restriction of use such as those examined by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-519 and Case C-142/05 Mickelsson and Roos [2009] ECR I-4273.

As regards the justifications put forward by the Kingdom of Spain, namely, road safety and environmental protection, the Commission takes the view that the rules at issue are not proportionate to the objectives pursued and do not contribute to their attainment in a consistent, systematic manner.

The fact that a vehicle has been registered for the first time more than five months beforehand is no indication that it is not technically fit to be used in commercial activities nor is it an indication of the impact of its use on the environment. By contrast, a roadworthiness test would allow, at least to some extent, the technical condition of the vehicle to be determined and would be a less restrictive measure. Similarly, an examination of the technical characteristics of the vehicle, in conjunction where appropriate with a roadworthiness test, should make it possible to evaluate the level of pollution emitted by that vehicle.

Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the Kingdom of Spain can impose a five-month age-limit for the first vehicle while allowing other vehicles to be added to the fleet upon condition only that the average age-limit for the fleet does not exceed six years.

Appeal brought on 28 September 2012 by Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-264/00 Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation v Commission

(Case C-436/12 P)

2012/C 379/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Veolia Acqua Compagnia Generale delle Acque srl, in liquidation (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Vegliantini, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Comitato Venezia vuole vivere [Joined Cases C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P and C-76/09 P], with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof as to the conditions set out in Article 87(1) EC; insufficient, incorrect and, in any event, contradictory reasoning.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 October 2012 — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber

(Case C-438/12)

2012/C 379/28

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irmengard Weber

Defendant: Mechthilde Weber

Questions referred

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Action brought on 9 October 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-453/12)

2012/C 379/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.-P-Keppenne, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant claims that the Council infringed Articles 83 and 83a of the Staff Regulations and the provisions contained in Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, by refusing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation which proposes to adjust, from 1 July 2011, the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union, even though according to the binding wording of those provisions the annual adjustment of that rate is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council with no discretion.

According to the applicant, the refusal of the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a regulation and, accordingly, to lower the rate of contribution by officials, infringes not only Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations, by requiring the officials to make an excessive contribution, but also Article 83a(1) of the Staff Regulations, by placing at risk the balance of the notional fund scheme which guarantees the pensions of officials and other agents.

Finally, according to the Commission, by laying down the method of calculation of the rate of contribution by officials and servants precisely in Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, the European Union legislature left the Council with no discretion and obliged it to adopt the Commission’s proposals within a reasonable period of time.

Action brought on 12 October 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-462/12)

2012/C 379/30

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant(s): Hungary

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Law No XCIV of 2010 on a special tax on certain sectors of activity (az egyes ágazatokat terhelő különadóról szóló 2010. évi XCIV. törvény) introduced a new tax, called a special tax, on three main sectors of the Hungarian economy — retail trade activities, telecommunications activities and all commercial energy supply activities — which those affected have to pay for three consecutive years on the basis of their turnover before tax.

In support of its claim for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations the Commission put forward the following pleas in law and arguments:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 18 October 2012 — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retreiver Sverige AB

(Case C-466/12)

2012/C 379/31

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd

Defendant: Retreiver Sverige AB

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Timișoara — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională Pentru Protecția Consumatorilor CRPC ARAD TIMIȘ

(Case C-47/11) (1)

2012/C 379/32

Language of the case: Romanian

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

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

Order of the President of the Court of 18 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-473/11) (1)

2012/C 379/33

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Roermond — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Jibril Jaoo

(Case C-88/12) (1)

2012/C 379/34

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Arbos v Commission

(Case T-161/06) (1)

(Action for damages - ‘Culture 2000’ programme - Grants made for projects - Claims for payment of various sums - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissible)

2012/C 379/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Arbos Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: H. Karl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and I. Kaufmann-Buhler, then L. Pignataro-Nolin and W. Molls, and finally W. Molls and D. Roussanov, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation from the Commission, first, for payment of EUR 38 585,42 plus interest at 12 % from 1 January 2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus interest at 12 % from 1 March 2003 and, second, the payment of EUR 26 459,38 excluding VAT for fees for lawyers instructed during the pre-litigation phase.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Astrim and Elyo Italia v Commission

(Case T-216/09) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Maintenances services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems - Ispra Joint Research Centre - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract specifications - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 379/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Astrim SpA (Rome, Italy) and Elyo Italia Srl (Sesto San Giovanni, Italy) (represented by: M. Brugnoletti and M. Civello, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, then E. Manhaeve and F. Moro, Agents, and D. Gullo, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 27 March 2009 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicants in connection with the call for tenders published on 25 October 2008 by the Commission for the award of routine and non-routine maintenance services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems at the Ispra Joint Research Centre (OJ 2008/S 208-274999), and, in the alternative, an application for partial annulment of point 17 of the invitation to tender.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-503/10) (1)

(Public supply contracts - Call for tenders - Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines - Rejection of a submitted tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer)

2012/C 379/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: R. Gross, T. Kroupa, T. Drosdziok and F. Ahr, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision dated 10 August 2010 of the European Union delegation in the Republic of Serbia (OJ 2010/S 192-293332) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — riha v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL&FIT)

(Case T-552/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VITAL&FIT - Earlier national word mark VITAFIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 379/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftund & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer and A. Marx, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2010 (Case R 1229/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftund & Co. KG and riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 30 of 29.1.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)

(Case T-191/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Miura - Earlier national word and figurative marks MIURA - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Notification by ordinary mail - Rule 62(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

2012/C 379/39

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA (Sant’ Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: P. Kather, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez (Seville, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 161/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez and Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2012 — CF Sharp Shipping Agencies v Council

(Case T-53/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2012/C 379/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CF Sharp Shipping Agencies Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: S. Drury, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

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

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2012 — Oil Turbo Compressor Co. v Council

(Case T-63/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2012/C 379/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and Z. Kupčová)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP OJ 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

Action brought on 24 September 2012 — Bacardi v OHIM — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries (42 BELOW)

(Case T-435/12)

2012/C 379/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Reinisch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘42 BELOW’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 8391856

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Czech trade mark registration No 263350 for the figurative mark ‘VODKA 42’, for among others goods and services in class 33; Unregistered trade mark ‘VODKA 42’ used in Czech Republic and Slovakia

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and refused the CTM application for all the goods

Pleas in law:

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Ceramicas del Foix (Rock & Rock)

(Case T-436/12)

2012/C 379/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramicas del Foix, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘Rock & Rock’, for goods in classes 2, 19 and 27 — Community trade mark registration No 3468774

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on relative grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. The cancellation applicant invoked the following earlier rights: German trade mark registration No 30229274 of the word mark ‘Rock’, for goods and services in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42; German trade mark registration No 30212141 of the word mark ‘MASTERROCK’, for goods and services in classes 17, 19 and 37; German trade mark registration No 39920622 of the word mark ‘FIXROCK’, for goods in classes 6, 17 and 19; German trade mark registration No 2078534 of the word mark ‘FLEXIROCK’, for goods in class 19; German trade mark registration No 39732094 of the word mark ‘COVERROCK’, for goods in classes 17 and 19; German trade mark registration No 30306452 of the word mark ‘CEILROCK’, for goods in classes 6, 17 and 19

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

Action brought on 5 October 2012 — ancotel v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel.)

(Case T-443/12)

2012/C 379/44

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ancotel GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Truelsen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Acotel SpA (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark, containing the word element ‘ancotel’, for services in Classes 35 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 3 314 424

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community figurative mark, containing the word element ‘ACOTEL’, for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)

(Case T-445/12)

2012/C 379/45

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Koscher + Würtz GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co (Asperg, Germany)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Koscher + Würtz GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: International registration with protection in respect of the European Union of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘KW SURGICAL ELEMENTS’ for goods in Class 10 — International registration with protection in respect of the European Union No W 968 722

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Ka We’ for goods in Class 10

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and protection denied in respect of the trade mark registration

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

Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Visa Europe v Commission

(Case T-447/12)

2012/C 379/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Visa Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and J. Aitken, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101] and [102] of the [TFEU] (OJ L 1, p. 1)

Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission

(Case T-448/12)

2012/C 379/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Davril (Épargnes, France) (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission  (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)

(1)  OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

(2)  OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.

Action brought on 17 October 2012 — British Telecommunications v Commission

(Case T-456/12)

2012/C 379/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Telecommunications plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés and G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyers)

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.

(1)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks [OJ 2009 C 235, p. 7]

Action brought on 17 October 2012 — Virgin Media v Commission

(Case T-460/12)

2012/C 379/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Virgin Media Ltd (Hook, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Ellison, D. Slater, Solicitors, and D. Waelbroeck, 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.

Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Flughafen Lübeck v Commission

(Case T-461/12)

2012/C 379/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Pilkington Group v Commission

(Case T-462/12)

2012/C 379/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

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 six pleas in law.

(1)  Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29)

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 001, p. 1)

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

Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)

(Case T-463/12)

2012/C 379/52

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MB’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 369 771

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Müller-Boré & Partner

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark MBP and the national and Community trade mark, including the word element ‘MB&P’, for services in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law:

Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-464/12 P (R))

2012/C 379/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the decision of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 rejecting the application for suspension of the operation of: (i) the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request for payment of the sum of EUR 1 661, unlawfully deducted, in the appellant’s opinion, from his invalidity allowance; (ii) the Commission’s implied decision dismissing the appellant’s complaint; and (iii) any decision on the basis of which the Commission deducted the sum of EUR 1 661 from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of June, July, August and September 2011.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

Action brought on 19 October 2012 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-465/12)

2012/C 379/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AGC Glass Europe (Brussels, Belgium); AGC Automotive Europe (Fleurus, Belgium); AGC France (Boussois, France); AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl (Cuneo, Italy); AGC Glass UK Ltd (Northhampton, United Kingdom); and AGC Glass Germany GmbH (Wegberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, J. Blockx and P. Niggemann, lawyers, and S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

(1)  Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ 2011 L 275, p.29)

(2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines or alternatively reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p.3); Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17)

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

(4)  Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ 2005 C 325, p.7).

(5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p.1).

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2012 — Markland v Europol

(Case F-34/11) (1)

(Civil Service - Europol staff - Temporary staff contract - Application of the CEOS - Grading - Action manifestly unfounded)

2012/C 379/55

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Saskia Jane Markland (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: N.D. Dane, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to place the applicant in grade AST 5.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.11, p. 30.

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-108/12)

2012/C 379/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 1 October 2012 — ZZ v EMA

(Case F-110/12)

2012/C 379/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application seeking reclassification of his contract as a member of the auxiliary staff as a contract as a member of the temporary staff.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 2 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-111/12)

2012/C 379/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to accept the findings of the Medical Committee ruling on the applicant’s level of disability and the occupational origin of his disease

Form of order sought

Action brought on 4 October 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-112/12)

2012/C 379/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of decisions on the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights under the European Union pension scheme which applies the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Frontex

(Case F-116/12)

2012/C 379/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s staff report and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-119/12)

2012/C 379/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: Europol

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annul the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 June 2012.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-120/12)

2012/C 379/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: Europol

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annul the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 March 2012.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-121/12)

2012/C 379/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: Europol

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annul the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and any other compensation actually received by her since 15 April 2012.

Form of order sought

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 October 2012 — Verstreken v Council

(Case F-16/10) (1)

2012/C 379/64

Language of the case: French

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

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 55.