2013/C 298/01

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

OJ C 291, 5.10.2013

Past publications

OJ C 284, 28.9.2013

OJ C 274, 21.9.2013

OJ C 260, 7.9.2013

OJ C 252, 31.8.2013

OJ C 245, 24.8.2013

OJ C 233, 10.8.2013

These texts are available on:

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2013 — Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC) v Evonik Degussa GmbH, Akzo Nobel N.V., Solvay SA, Kemira Oyj, Arkema France, FMC Foret SA, Chemoxal SA, Edison SpA

(Case C-352/13)

2013/C 298/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Dortmund

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC)

Defendant: Evonik Degussa GmbH, Akzo Nobel N.V., Solvay SA, Kemira Oyj, Arkema France, FMC Foret SA, Chemoxal SA, Edison SpA

Questions referred

(1)  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).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

(Case C-401/13)

2013/C 298/03

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance: Vasiliki Balazs

Defendant at first instance: Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one state to nationals of the other state who had been political refugees in the territory of the first state and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second state, in exchange for a payment by the first state of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

Appeal brought on 19 July 2013 by Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 February 2013 in Case T-378/11 Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-412/13 P)

2013/C 298/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Kunze and G Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Forms of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing the Appellant’s claim for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 May 2011 relating to a claim of seniority of earlier marks in an application for registration of the figurative sign MEDINET as a Community trade mark.

The General Court infringed Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark by holding that that provision was to be interpreted narrowly and did not allow the seniority of part of an earlier national mark to be claimed. It further infringed its duty to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, in that it came to its decision on the basis of incomplete factual and legal considerations. Finally, the decision of the General Court without an oral procedure constituted a breach of Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009.

Appeal brought on 22 July 2013 by Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2013 in Case T-530/10 Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-414/13 P)

2013/C 298/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal the appellant puts forward a complaint of infringement of substantive Community law and an incomplete review and assessment of the factual basis. It claims that the General Court incompletely assessed the factual basis in this case which constitutes an error in law (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-51/09 P Becker v Harman International Industries  (1)). This may be invoked before the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal (see Case C-317/10 P Union Investment Privatfonds v UniCredito Italiano  (2)).

In the judgment under appeal the General Court assumes that the presented declaration in lieu of an oath makes no reference to the further evidence submitted. This assertion is inaccurate. It is clear from the declaration that reference is made to the further evidence attached. Therefore, the General Court did not fully review and assess the declaration. This therefore concerns an error in law in the judgment under appeal, which may be raised at the appeal stage.

If the General Court had fully reviewed and assessed the evidence before it, then it would have found genuine use of both of the marks cited in opposition pursuant to the first sentence of Article 42(2) and of Article 42(3) of the Community trade mark Regulation (3) (Regulation No 40/94). Consequently the judgment under appeal also infringes the first sentence of Article 42(2) and of Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

In addition, the judgment under appeal also infringes Article 15(1) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94. The General Court erred in law by stating that mark No 115 1 678 cited in opposition, ‘W. Amadeus Mozart’ is not used as a mark.

(1)  [2010] ECR I-5805.

(2)  [2011] ECR I-5471.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 31 July 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs

(Case C-432/13)

2013/C 298/06

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

Respondent: Attila Balazs

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one state to nationals of the other state who had been political refugees in the territory of the first state and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second state, in exchange for a payment by the first state of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 August 2013 — E. v B.

(Case C-436/13)

2013/C 298/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.

Defendant: B.

Questions referred

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. OJ L 338, p. 1

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. v Council

(Case T-5/13 R)

(Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Prohibition of the execution of ongoing trade contracts - Application for suspension of the operation of a measure - Manifest inadmissibility of the plea of illegality on which the application is based - Inadmissibility of the application)

2013/C 298/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures, and, secondly, of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), in so far as that act makes it impossible to perform the contracts concluded by the applicant with partners established in the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)

(Case T-37/13) (1)

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

2013/C 298/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Exakt Advanced Technologies GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bismarck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd (Aberdeen, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2012 (Case R 1764/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Exakt Advanced Technologies GmbH and Exakt Precision Tools Ltd.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v European Commission

(Case T-56/13) (1)

(Access to documents of the institutions - Document held by the Commission concerning European Union energy policy - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 298/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); and Stichting BirdLife Europe (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the Commission’s implied decision to refuse the applicants access to a document concerning European Union energy policy.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-366/13 R)

(Interim relief - State aid - Aid implemented in favour of companies responsible for the public service of providing maritime transport services between Corsica and Marseille - Compensation paid in respect of additional services provided to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision classifying that aid as incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of that aid from the recipients - Application for stay of execution - No urgency)

2013/C 298/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, N. Rouam, G. de Bergues and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Decision C(2013) 1926 final of the European Commission of 2 May 2013 on State aid No SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Société nationale Corse Méditerranée and the Compagnie méridionale de navigation.

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 18 June 2013 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération

(Case T-326/13)

2013/C 298/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Defendant: Thales développement et coopération SAS (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission is seeking, by the action brought under Article 272 TFEU, an order from the Court that the defendant repay all of the sums received by the defendant’s former subsidiary, SRTI (SRTI System, Industrial Process Department), a company that became first, SODETEG (Société d’Études Techniques et d’Entreprises Générales SA) then THALESEC (Thales Engineering and Consulting), in connection with two research contracts known as ‘NEMECEL’ and ‘DREAMCAR’.

The Commission claims that the sums at issue were wrongly paid, following serious financial irregularities, non-compliance with contractual obligations and breaches of fundamental rules of law. The defendant’s subsidiary inter alia declared excessive costs by over-billing for hours not worked.

Action brought on 3 July 2013 — Kadhaf Al Dam v Council and Commission

(Case T-348/13)

2013/C 298/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ahmed Mohammed Kadhaf Al Dam (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: H. de Charette, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-356/13 P)

2013/C 298/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

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 appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal relating to paragraphs 35, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and infringement of the principle of prohibition of arbitrary action, since the Civil Service Tribunal distorted and misinterpreted the facts and misread and misinterpreted the application at first instance and the contested decision.

Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)

(Case T-388/13)

2013/C 298/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Costa Crociere SpA (Genova, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guerlain SA (Levallois-Perret, France)

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 verbal mark SAMSARA for services in class 44 — Community trade mark application No 8 979 122

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: Community trade mark registration No 497 966 of the verbal mark SAMSARA for goods in class 3

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1

Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

(Case T-400/13)

2013/C 298/16

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AINHOA’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

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 cancellation applicant relied on Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or 8(5), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Sea Handling v Commission

(Case T-456/13)

2013/C 298/17

Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision refusing to grant that company access to the documents in the Commission’s possession relating to the administrative procedure which had culminated in the adoption of the Commission decision of 19 December 2012 concerning the capital injections made by SEA SpA to SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 — Italy/SEA Handling).

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

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2013 — bpost v Commission

(Case T-412/12) (1)

2013/C 298/18

Language of the case: English

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

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2013 — Sun Capital Partners v OHIM — Sun Capital Partners (SUN CAPITAL)

(Case T-164/13) (1)

2013/C 298/19

Language of the case: English

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

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

Order of the General Court of 14 August 2013 — Nordex Holding v OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)

(Case T-301/13) (1)

2013/C 298/20

Language of the case: English

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

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

Order of the General Court of 14 August 2013 — Nordex Holding v OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)

(Case T-302/13) (1)

2013/C 298/21

Language of the case: English

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

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.