2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia

(Case C-416/10) (1)

(Article 267 TFEU - Annulment of a judicial decision - Referral back to the court concerned - Obligation to comply with the annulment decision - Request for a preliminary ruling - Whether possible - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 96/61/EC - Public participation in the decision-making process - Construction of a landfill site - Application for a permit - Trade secrets - Non-communication of a document to the public - Effect on the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site - Rectification - Assessment of the environmental impact of the project - Final opinion prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union - Application in time of Directive 85/337 - Effective legal remedy - Interim measures - Suspension of implementation - Annulment of the contested decision - Right to property - Interference)

2013/C 63/02

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Jozef Križan, Katarína Aksamitová, Gabriela Kokošková, Jozef Kokoška, Martina Strezenická, Jozef Strezenický, Peter Šidlo, Lenka Šidlová, Drahoslava Šidlová, Milan Šimovič, Elena Šimovičová, Stanislav Aksamit, Tomáš Pitoňák, Petra Pitoňáková, Mária Križanová, Vladimír Mizerák, Ľubomír Pevný, Darina Brunovská, Mária Fišerová, Lenka Fišerová, Peter Zvolenský, Katarína Zvolenská, Kamila Mizeráková, Anna Konfráterová, Milan Konfráter, Michaela Konfráterová, Tomáš Pavlovič, Jozef Krivošík, Ema Krivošíková, Eva Pavlovičová, Jaroslav Pavlovič, Pavol Šipoš, Martina Šipošová, Jozefína Šipošová, Zuzana Šipošová, Ivan Čaputa, Zuzana Čaputová, Štefan Strapák, Katarína Strapáková, František Slezák, Agnesa Slezáková, Vincent Zimka, Elena Zimková, Marián Šipoš, Mesto Pezinok

Respondent: Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia

Intervener: Ekologická skládka as

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Articles 191(1) and (2) TFEU and 267 TFEU, Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), in particular Articles 1, 6, 15 and 15a, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in particular Articles 2 and 10a, and Articles 6 and 9 of the (Aarhus) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Establishment of a landfill site — Assessment of the environmental effects of the project — Public participation in the decision-making process — Possibility for a court of a Member State to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the application, of its own motion, of European Union law on the protection of the environment, even if the Constitutional Court of that State has excluded such application by a decision binding on the referring court

Operative part of the judgment

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, such as the referring court, is obliged to make, of its own motion, a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union even though it is ruling on a referral back to it after its first decision was set aside by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned and even though a national rule obliges it to resolve the dispute by following the legal opinion of that latter court.

Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it:

—	requires that the public concerned have access to an urban planning decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from the beginning of the authorisation procedure for the installation concerned,

—

does not allow the competent national authorities to refuse the public concerned access to such a decision by relying on the protection of the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided for by national or European Union law to protect a legitimate economic interest, and

—

does not preclude the possibility of rectifying, during the administrative procedure at second instance, an unjustified refusal to make available to the public concerned an urban planning decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, during the administrative procedure at first instance, provided that all options and solutions remain possible and that regularisation at that stage of the procedure still allows that public effectively to influence the outcome of the decision-making process, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

Article 15a of Directive 96/61, as amended by Regulation No 166/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that members of the public concerned must be able, in the context of the action provided for by that provision, to ask the court or competent independent and impartial body established by law to order interim measures such as temporarily to suspend the application of a permit, within the meaning of Article 4 of that directive, pending the final decision.

A decision of a national court, taken in the context of national proceedings implementing the obligations resulting from Article 15a of Directive 96/61, as amended by Regulation No 166/2006, and from Article 9(2) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, which annuls a permit granted in infringement of the provisions of that directive is not capable, in itself, of constituting an unjustified interference with the developer’s right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

(Case C-206/11) (1)

(Consumer protection - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market - Legislation of a Member State providing for prior authorisation of announcements of sales)

2013/C 63/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Köck

Defendant: Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), in particular Articles 3(1) and 5(5) — Legislation of a Member State prescribing prior authorisation for the announcement of a clearance sale

Operative part of the judgment

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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national court from ordering the cessation of a commercial practice not covered by Annex I to that directive on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of the unfairness of the practice in question against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

(1) OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-224/11) (1)

(VAT - Leasing services supplied together with insurance for the leased item, subscribed to by the lessor and invoiced by the latter to the lessee - Classification - Single complex service or two distinct services - Exemption - Insurance transaction)

2013/C 63/04

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Izba Finansowa, Wydział I — Intrerpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 28 and 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Leasing service accompanied by a service involving the taking-out of insurance on the subject-matter of the leasing service, entered into by the leasing undertaking and invoiced by the latter to the lessee — Whether the transaction is to be treated, for purposes of VAT, as a single composite service or as two independent services

Operative part of the judgment

The supply of insurance services for a leased item and the supply of the leasing services themselves must, in principal, be regarded as distinct and independents supplies of services for VAT purposes. It if for the referring court to determine whether, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the transactions concerned are so closely linked that they must be regarded as constituting a single supply or whether, to the contrary, they constitute independent services.

Where the lessor insures the leased item itself and re-invoices the exact cost of the insurance to the lessee, such a transaction constitutes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, an insurance transaction within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-360/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Articles 96 and 98(2) - Points 3 and 4 of Annex III - ‘Pharmaceutical products normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses and as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes’ - ‘Medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled’)

2013/C 63/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), read in conjunction with Annex III thereto — Supplies of goods and services to which reduced rates may be applied

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to

—	medicinal substances which can be used habitually and suitably in the manufacturing of medicinal products;

—	medical devices, material, equipment and appliances which, viewed objectively, can be used only to prevent, diagnose, treat, alleviate or cure human or animal illnesses or ailments, but which are not normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled;

—	aids and equipment which may be used essentially or primarily to treat physical disabilities in animals;

—	and, finally, to aids and equipment essentially or primarily used to treat human disabilities, but which are not intended for the exclusive personal use of the disabled,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

(Case C-361/11) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function - CN code 8443 31 91 - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008)

2013/C 63/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of multifunctional printers consisting of the assembled combination of three units (printer, scanner and photocopier) — Classification, prior to 1 January 2007, under subheading 8471 60 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, with resulting exemption from customs duties, by reason of application of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others [2008] ECR I-9489 — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in so far as it classifies under CN code 8443 31 91 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Regulation No 2568/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, multifunctional printers, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function, released for free circulation in April 2009.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-543/11) (1)

(Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) - Land which has not been built on - Building land - Definitions - Demolition work for the purposes of future construction - Exemption from VAT)

2013/C 63/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3), of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions provided for by the Directive — Supply of land which has not been built on.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) therein, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in Article 135(1)(k) does not cover the supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of land which has not been built on following the demolition of the building situated on it, even where, at the time of that supply, improvement works on the land, apart from that demolition, had not been carried out, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of the factual circumstances surrounding that transaction and prevailing at the time of supply, including the intention of the parties when it is supported by objective evidence, that, at that time, the land at issue was in fact intended to be built on, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Geodis Calberson GE v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-623/11) (1)

(Agriculture - Food aid - Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 - Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation - Successful tenderer for a contract for the transport of beef - Conferring of jurisdiction - Arbitration clause)

2013/C 63/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Geodis Calberson GE

Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’Etat — Interpretation of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3) — Conferring of jurisdiction in a dispute between the successful tenderer for a contract for transporting beef and the national competent intervention agency concerning the payment procedure and compensation for damage suffered — Arbitration clause

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1125/1999 of 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as conferring on the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated to receive the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to the Russian Federation makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular actions for compensation in respect of damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions..

(1) OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

(Case C-23/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Alleged violation of the right to respect for human dignity - Effective judicial protection - Right of access to a court)

2013/C 63/09

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Party to the main proceedings

proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — Right of appeal of third country nationals in relation to a refusal of entry — Action seeking to have declared unlawful the conduct of border officials during the procedure to authorise the crossing of an external border — Compensation for the non-material harm incurred as a result of such unlawful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) obliges Member States to establish a means of obtaining redress only against decisions to refuse entry.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 13 November 2012 — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-513/12)

2013/C 63/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aslihan Nazli Ayalti

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

Do Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (AP) and/or Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 (Decision No 1/80) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to make himself or herself understood, in a basic way, in the German language?

2.	If the first question is to be answered in the negative: does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1?

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2012 — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Province of Salzburg

(Case C-514/12)

2013/C 63/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

Defendant: Province of Salzburg

Question referred

Do Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 492/2011 (1) preclude national legislation (here, Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Salzburger Landesvertragsbedienstetengesetz) under which, for the purposes of determining the effective date for advancement, a public employer takes into account all uninterrupted periods of service which its employees have completed with it, but takes into account, on an all-inclusive basis from a certain age, only a proportion of the periods of service which its employees have completed with other public or private employers whether within Austria or in other EU or EEA States?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2012 — Mömax Logistik GmbH

(Case C-528/12)

2013/C 63/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesamt für Justiz

Question referred

Is a rule of national law under which the provisions of Article 57(1) of Directive 78/660/EEC (1) concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts are not applied to companies governed by the law of the Member State only if the parent undertaking is governed by the law of the same Member State and has prepared consolidated accounts in accordance with the law of that State compatible with the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU)?

(1) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato

(Case C-542/12)

2013/C 63/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Pordenone

Party to the main proceedings

Giorgio Fidenato

Questions referred

1.	Is the authorisation provided by Article 1(2) of Legislative Decree No 212 of 24 April 2001, within the meaning conferred on it by the national case-law, compatible with the rules in Directive 2001/18/EC (1) or does it conflict with those rules?

In particular, where the Member State makes the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) subject to authorisation specifically aimed at protecting the so-called principle of coexistence, is that specific authorisation necessary also for GMOs which are already listed in the common catalogue?

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

(Case C-543/12)

2013/C 63/14

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michal Zeman

Defendant: Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline

Questions referred

Is Article 1(4) in conjunction with Article 3 [of Council Directive 91/477/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)] and Articles 45(1) and 52 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] to be interpreted as

(a)

precluding a Member State from adopting legislation which would prevent a European firearms pass from being issued under Article 1(4) of the Directive to the holder of a firearms licence (the relevant authorisation to possess a firearm), which was issued for a purpose other than for hunting or target shooting use and which otherwise allows that person to possess (and carry) the firearm for which he is requesting that that European firearms pass be issued,

despite the fact that:

(b)

the legislation of that Member State (the home State) allows the licence holder, even without the European firearms pass, to take that firearm out of its territory to the territory of another Member State provided, merely, that he meets reporting obligations, and, even where a European firearms pass was issued, the position of that licence holder would not change in any way in relation to that home Member State (that is to say, that person would only have to meet identical reporting obligations) ?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, where the legislation of the Member State precludes the issue of a European firearms pass to such a licence holder, does Article 1(4) of the Directive have direct effect so that the Member State is on the basis of that provision required to issue a European firearms pass to that licence holder?

If the answer to the first or the second question is in the negative, is the competent authority required to interpret legislation of the Member State, which:

(a)	does not expressly prohibit the abovementioned licence holder from obtaining the European firearms pass, but

(b)	provides for the issue of a European firearms pass only to a person holding a firearms licence (the relevant authorisation to possess a firearm) which was issued for hunting or target shooting purposes,

to the greatest possible extent so that the competent authority is required to issue a European firearms pass also to the holder of a firearms licence which was not issued for hunting or target shooting purposes, in so far as this is possible through giving indirect effect to the Directive?

(1) OJ 1991 L 256, p. 51.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/8

Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Wam Industriale SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission

(Case C-560/12 P)

2013/C 63/15

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Wam Industriale SpA (represented by: E. Giuliani and R. Bertoni, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	annul the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, notified on 1 October 2012, in Case T-303/10 concerning an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29);

—	annul, on the grounds set out below, Commission Decision 2011/134/EU by establishing and declaring that the aid referred to in the 1995 contract and in the 2000 contract is compatible with the common market;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Breach of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 266 TFEU, manifest error of assessment and — contrary to Article 296 TFEU — a failure to state reasons, in that the European Commission has failed to comply with the judgments of the General Court and of the Court of Justice annulling the European Commission’s decision of 19 May 2004, having adopted a new decision concerning the same State aid, even though the annulment of the previous decision did not relate to formal or procedural defects.

Breach of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(1) TFEU, Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and Article 296 TFEU, in finding that the alleged State aid came within the scope of Article 108 TFEU, even though it was aid intended for the penetration of non-EU markets; in not having taken into consideration the fact that the alleged State aid in question had been granted pursuant to Italian Law No 394 of 29 July 1981, notified to the European Commission, albeit not in advance, pursuant to Article 108(3) [TFEU]; and in not having taken the view that the aid in question had been implicitly approved within the terms of Articles 2(2) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

Breach of Articles 107(3) TFEU and 108(1) TFEU, breach of Regulations (EC) No 800/2008, (2) No 1998/2006, (3) No 69/2001 (4) and No 70/2001 (5) and — contrary to Article 296 TFEU — a failure to state reasons, in not having regarded the aid in question as constituting an application of a general scheme; in not having classified that aid as compatible aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since the promotion of the internationalisation of businesses would have fostered the development of Community businesses; in having considered the aid to be export aid or aid for export-related activities and not, instead, to be aid intended to promote market penetration in non-EU countries; and in not having placed that aid under the exemption threshold provided for by the de minimis regulations.

Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of an incorrect calculation of the grant equivalent.

Breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, in having imposed a recovery order in respect of aid which was attributable to the general scheme of 1981, a scheme of which the Commission was aware and which had not been declared unlawful by any European authority.

Breach of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and infringement of the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence in that the Commission failed to carry out additional measures of inquiry in order to overcome the shortcomings identified by the Community Courts, and in not having promoted the necessary inter partes discussions with Wam and the Italian authorities.

Infringement of the principle of sound administration, the principle of diligence and the duty of care, in that the present dispute has lasted for 17 years from the date on which the first aid measure was granted.

(1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.

(3) OJ 2006 L 379, p. 5.

(4) OJ 2001 L 10, p. 30.

(5) OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/9

Appeal brought on 12 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-373/09 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)

(Case C-582/12 P)

2013/C 63/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Emilio Pucci International BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 in Case T-373/09 inasmuch as it conflicts with the present action

—	order OHIM to pay the costs of El Corte Inglés, S.A.

—	order Emilio Pucci International BV to pay the costs of El Corte Inglés, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prospectuses or periodicals or copies of other documents submitted by the opposing party have never been produced in full or in their original form. The result is that the evidence presented by the opposing party could not be taken into account for any specific class. Nonetheless, the General Court, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of its judgment, which focuses on the need to present only original documents, considers that there is no fraud, which is certainly not what had been alleged.

The documents set out in Annex 2 must be excluded because the dates and the references to publication have clearly been inserted by the opposing party. Given that those issues have not received an adequate response in the judgment, the applicant also considers that the documents contained in the second item of evidence should be declared inadmissible and, consequently, neither use nor reputation of any of the opposing trademarks in class 25 can be deduced from those publications.

As to the comparison of the goods and services at issue, and all the submissions made up to this point: the opposing party, Emilio Pucci International, B.V. has not proved the use of its earlier Italian trademarks and therefore it is sufficient to carry out a comparison in respect of the application inasmuch as it refers to Classes 18 and 24 of community trademark 203570.

The opposing party acknowledged that the ‘Emilio Pucci’ trademark fell into disuse after the 70s. Further, it should also be noted that the trademark ‘Emidio Tucci’, which is a renowned trademark in Spain and has clearly proved to be a success in that country, relates to the name and surname of two real persons, Emidio Tucci and Emilio Pucci. These issues are part of the submissions which lie at the heart of the proceedings before the OHIM.

Evidence of an unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark of the opposing party must show the existence of an intention to trade upon its reputation (see Spa-Finders, paragraph 51 (1)). Nonetheless, the opposing party has not made any submissions in that regard.

Therefore, when the opposing party alleges real prejudice or an unfair advantage, it must provide evidence thereof, or carry out an assessment of the probabilities and provide evidence which shows that the risk of unfair advantage is not merely hypothetical (paragraph 64 of the judgment), in relation to the type of prejudice allegedly suffered, or to the applicant’s unjust advantage; the mere general allegation of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (2) is not sufficient.

The opposing party, Emilio Pucci International, has not fulfilled its obligation to substantiate those allegations; rather, it simply reasons in general, without detail, about those issues, despite which the General Court, in our respectful opinion, inappropriately, supplements the opposing party’s omission (see paragraph 65 of the judgment) and considers in its judgment that the matter has been proved.

The consequences for the case come about in paragraphs 66 to 68 of the judgment, which are based on the premise that has previously been shown to be incorrect: if the opposing party, which bears the burden of proof, has not shown the unfair advantage or prejudice to repute, it cannot avoid carrying out the assessment of which goods fall foul of the restrictions set out in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94.

(1) Case T-67/04 Spa Monopole v OHIM — Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements (SPA-FINDERS) [2005] ECR II-01825

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 011 p. 1)

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/10

Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by El Corte Inglès, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/09 Pucci International/OHIM v El Corte Inglès (Emidio Tucci)

(Case C-584/12 P)

2013/C 63/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglès, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo y E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Emilio Pucci International BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-357/09 of 27 September 2012 in its entirety

—	order OHIM to pay the costs of El Corte Inglés, S.A.

—	order Emilio Pucci International BV to pay the costs of El Corte Inglés, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The opposing party has not proved use for glasses, as established by the Board of Appeal of OHIM. In addition, that criterion in particular, i.e. non-consideration of genuine use in relation to the mere appearance of the trademark on or next to photographs, was specifically considered by the General Court in the judgment in Case T-39/10, (1) in paragraph 31. Accordingly, the judgment should not have considered proved the use for glasses of class 9 of previously mentioned trademark 274991.

Concerning the risk of confusion, Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (2) and the relevant case-law require it to be assessed globally taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. The Second Board of Appeal of OHIM found that those factors differed in their nature, in their purpose and in their method of use, adequately substantiating that argument (paragraph 102 of the contested decision). Whilst cosmetics or jewellery may retain a link with the broad and at the same time heterogeneous fashion sector, it does not mean they have a link with or should be considered similar to the goods contained in classes 18, 24 and 25.

The extension of the effects of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (3) to other goods of class 9 (glasses) and 14 (jewellery, imitation jewellery and watches) and to toilet paper (class 16) is inadequately reasoned and is based on presumptions which have not been proved by the applicant in Case T-357/09. (4) Especially in such cases, as noted by that very judgment at paragraphs 70 and 71, mere hypotheses cannot be admitted and nor can marks of great repute benefit from that extension per se, as the existence of future risks needs to be proved, which the applicant has not done.

(1) Judgment of the General Court in Case T-39/10 El Corte Inglès v OHIM of 27 September 2012, not yet published

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 011 p. 1)

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

(4) Judgment of the General Court in Case T-357/09 Pucci International v OHIM/El Corte Inglès (Emidio Tucci) of 27 September 2012, not yet published

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/11

Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission

(Case C-587/12 P)

2013/C 63/18

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, served on 3 October 2012, in Case T-257/10 Italian Republic v Commission concerning an action seeking annulment under Article 264 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2010 (C(2010) 1711 final) relating to State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002), notified by letter of 25 March 2010 (SG Greffe (2010) D/4224), and as a consequence also annul that decision;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Italian Republic puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.

First, it alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and of Articles 4, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 20 of Regulation (EC) 659/99. (1) The General Court erred in accepting that the Commission could, in this case, adopt a new decision without opening a fresh investigation procedure in the course of which the Italian Republic and the interested parties were given an opportunity to make known their views.

Second, it pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of the principle of the authority of res judicata. The General Court should have annulled the Commission’s new decision in so far as it reproduced the same, incorrect, assessment which had already formed the basis of the first decision.

Third, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 1(1)(d) and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006. (2) The General Court erred in holding that the contested measures were not among the measures which, under that regulation, do not constitute State aid.

Fourth, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 and is in breach of the principle of proportionality. The General Court erred in omitting to take note of the fact that the Commission’s decision required recovery of an advantage from which the undertaking had in actual fact never benefited.

(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).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p, 5).

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/11

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-600/12)

2013/C 63/19

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Düsterhaus, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

—

Declare that, by keeping in operation a malfunctioning and full landfill site (located at Griparaiika in the area of Kalamaki on Zakinthos) which does not fulfil all the relevant conditions and requirements of the environmental legislation of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) on waste and Articles 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 12 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) on the landfill of waste. In addition, by renewing the permit for the operation of the landfill site without complying with the procedure that is laid down by Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article.

—	Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

—

The Greek authorities are tolerating the continued operation of a landfill site that is already overfull and have not taken the necessary measures to ensure the requisite increase in the landfill site’s capacity (or an alternative means of dealing with the problem) until 31 December 2015 (when the renewed Environmental Conditions expire) or until a new landfill site begins operating on Zakinthos.

—

The Greek authorities have not taken all the required corrective measures to solve a significant number of problems that have been identified by various inspection reports (25 October 2011, 26 January 2010, 26 October 2009, 11 May 2009, 6 February 2009, 26 August 2008, 13 April 2007, 8 December 2005, 7 January 2005 and 14 December 1999) and tolerate the continued problematic operation of the landfill site in question.

—	The Greek authorities have not yet drawn up and approved the required conditioning plan for the Zakinthos landfill site and have not submitted an application for renewal of the waste storage permit including a risk assessment plan.

—	This means that they have not complied with the requirements of Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and Articles 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 12 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

—

Also, by the Joint Ministerial Decision of 8 June 2011 the Greek authorities extended the duration of the landfill site’s Environmental Conditions (which constitute the basis of the operating permit) until 31 December 2015 without the appropriate assessment of the implications that is required by Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC having been carried out.

(1) OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

(2) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

(3) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/12

Appeal brought on 27 December 2012 by Greinwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 Nicolas Wessang v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-608/12 P)

2013/C 63/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Greinwald GmbH (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

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

Form of order sought

—	Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 in so far as the application was granted;

—	amend the judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 so as to dismiss the application in its entirety;

—	order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is incompatible with the legal rationale underlying Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community trade mark regulation (CTMR), (1) in that it is based on the assumption of an increase in the likelihood of confusion owing to the conceptual similarity of the words ‘foods’ and ‘snacks’. According to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR, signs that are devoid of any distinctive character and descriptive signs are excluded from trade mark protection. Similarities between components of signs that are devoid of any distinctive character or are descriptive cannot therefore be responsible for, or increase, any likelihood of confusion.

It follows from this that a likelihood of confusion presupposes the possible impairment of a trade mark’s function as an indication of origin. However, such a function can be ascribed only to signs and components of signs that have distinctive character. If a component of a sign does not have the function of indicating origin, that function cannot be impaired as a result of the use of a similar component of a sign in a subsequent trade mark.

The principle that components of signs that are devoid of distinctive character cannot give rise to any likelihood of confusion is, after all, reflected in the case-law of the Court, according to which the public will not generally consider a descriptive element forming part of a complex mark to be the distinctive or dominant element of the overall impression of a composite mark.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p.1.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/13

Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

(Case C-615/12 P)

2013/C 63/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

—	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant’s appeal is founded on breach of procedural requirements, their unlawful application having led to the action being dismissed as inadmissible, as a result of which the appellant’s interests have been adversely affected, and also infringement of European Union law by the General Court.

In its decision the General Court dismissed the application as inadmissible as it was said not to have been sufficiently reasoned having regard to the legal basis, and thus did not comply with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That is not reflected in the case-file. The requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure were applied arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of the provision.

The General Court also failed to take any account at all, in relation to the question of merit in accordance with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, of the further submissions in the appellant’s reply and of the arguments in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, or took account of them solely in order to argue their inadequacy, and thereby contrary to the rules of procedure and disregarding all arguments refused to allow the application to be admitted.

By its decision to dismiss the application on the ground of inadmissibility the General Court took a decision that could have been taken in that form and challenged as such as long ago as 2007, and thereby infringed any procedural foreseeability, transparency and efficiency. Accordingly there has been no fair and balanced procedure.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

(Case C-1/13)

2013/C 63/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

Question referred

Must Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, if neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or if the court has accepted its jurisdiction by a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever, including the exhaustion of legal remedies?

(1) OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 3 January 2013 — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu-ja Tolliameti Ida maksu-ja tollikeskus

(Case C-3/13)

2013/C 63/23

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: AS Baltic Agro

Defendant and respondent: Maksu-ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

Questions referred

(a)	Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the importer and the first independent customer in the Community must always be one and the same person?

(b)

Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008, in conjunction with Commission Decision 2008/577/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that exemption from anti-dumping duty applies only to such first independent customer in the Community as has not resold the goods to be declared prior to making the declaration?

(c)

Is Article 66 of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, (3) in conjunction with Article 251 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) and the other procedural rules relating to subsequent amendments to a customs declaration, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the wrong consignee is entered in a customs declaration on the importation of goods, it must be possible, upon an application being lodged, for the declaration to be invalidated and the consignee’s details to be corrected even after the goods have been released if the customs duty exemption provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 ought to have applied if the correct consignee had been entered, or is Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 to be interpreted, in those circumstances, as meaning that the customs authorities are not entitled to make a subsequent entry in the accounts?

(d)

If both of the alternatives in Question (c) should be answered in the negative, is it then compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 28(1) and Article 31 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if Article 66 of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, in conjunction with Article 251 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and the other procedural rules relating to subsequent amendments to a customs declaration, does not permit a declaration to be invalidated and the consignee’s details to be corrected, upon an application being lodged, after the goods have been released if the customs duty exemption provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 ought to have been applied if the correct consignee had been entered?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 1).

(2) Commission Decision 2008/577/EC of 4 July 2008 accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 43).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/14

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-8/13)

2013/C 63/24

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Kukovec, P. Hetsch and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

—	order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

(1) OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

(2) OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-9/13)

2013/C 63/25

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Kukovec, P. Hetsch and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;

—	order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

(1) OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.

(2) OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/17

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Salzgitter AG v European Commission

(Case T-308/00 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Steel industry - Tax incentives for the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic - Non-notified aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Recovery - Delay - Legal certainty - Calculation of the aid to be repaid - Aid falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty - Investments for the protection of the environment - Discount rate)

2013/C 63/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Salzgitter AG (Salzgitter, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and A. Wiedmann, Agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group’s steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG — Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Salzgitter AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice;

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs both before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 335, 25.11.2000.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/17

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

(Joined Cases T-225/06 RENV, T-255/06 RENV, T-257/06 RENV and T-309/06 RENV) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD - Appellations ‘bud’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2013/C 63/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, C. Petsch, S. Sculy-Logotheti and T. Lachacinski, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anheuser-Busch LLC (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, B. Goebel and A. Renck, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2006 (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June 2006 (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions;

2.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-46/09) (1)

(EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Processing of citrus fruits, cotton, beef and olive oil - Financial audit - Key checks - Proportionality - Recurrence - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 63/34

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias, S. Charitaki and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Korogiannakis)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 340, p. 99), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the application;

2.	Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum)

(Case T-355/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark Walzer Traum - Earlier national word mark Walzertraum - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

2013/C 63/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 623/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Wedl & Hofmann GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the application;

2.	Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11) (1)

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive immunity - Activity unconnected with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament - Procedure for waiving immunity - Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 63/36

Language of the cases: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action for annulment of a decision adopted by the European Parliament on 10 May 2011 to waive the immunity of the applicant, and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant in connection therewith and, second, action for annulment of the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant, adopted by the European Parliament on 10 May 2011, and application for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant in connection therewith.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	dismisses the action for annulment and the application for compensation in Case T-346/11;

2.	rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment in Case T-347/11;

3.	dismisses the application for compensation in Case T-347/11;

4.	orders Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs, including those relating to the applications for interim measures in Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium XL and Premium L)

(Joined Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Applications for the Community word marks Premium XL and Premium L - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 63/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2011 (Case R 245/2011-1 and Case R 246/2011-1 respectively), concerning applications for registration as Community trade marks of the word sign Premium XL and the word sign Premium L respectively

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Joins Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

2.	Dismisses the actions;

3.	Orders Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2013 — FunFactory v OHIM (Vibrator)

(Case T-137/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Vibrator - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - The first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - The second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 63/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FunFactory GmbH (Brême, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, laywer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 1436/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign representing a vibrator.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the application;

2.	Orders FunFactory GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6. 2012.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)

(Case T-451/12)

2013/C 63/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 389/2012-4;

—

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 389/2012-4 and grant the request for re-establishment of rights, and i) primarily, annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 to terminate the revocation proceedings under No 4054 C and order the Cancellation Division to re-open the revocation proceedings under No 4054 C and invite Stromberg Menswear to submit observations to continue the revocation proceedings, or, ii) alternatively, allow Stromberg Menswear to appeal the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 to close the revocation proceedings and refer the appeal back to the Board of Appeal; and

—	Order OHIM to pay any and all costs and legal fees incurred by Stromberg Menswear in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘STORMBERG’, for goods and services in class 25 — Community trade mark registration No 2557155

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following a surrender of the contested CTM by its proprietor

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the request for restitution in integrum into the time limit for filing the notice of appeal and declared that the appeal was deemed not having been filed

Pleas in law:

—	Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Articles 75 and/or 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/20

Action brought on 18 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)

(Case T-457/12)

2013/C 63/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 428/2012-4;

—

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 428/2012-4 and grant the request for re-establishment of rights, and i) primarily, annul the decision of OHIM to allow conversion, or, ii) alternatively, allow Stromberg Menswear to appeal the decision of OHIM to allow the conversion and refer the appeal back to the Board of Appeal; and

—	Order OHIM to pay any and all costs and legal fees incurred by Stromberg Menswear in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following a surrender of the contested CTM by its proprietor

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law:

—	Infringement of Articles 57 to 60 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 48(1)(c) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

—	Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)

(Case T-548/12)

2013/C 63/41

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: Redrock Construction s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in case R 1596/2011-4; and

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark in black and white ‘REDROCK’, for, among others, goods and services in classes 1, 2, 17, 19 and 37 — Community trade mark registration No 3866365

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 the grounds laid down in 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 registrations No 30312115, No 2078534, No 2078535, No 2079579, No 39502727, No 39517348, No 39543868, No 39551027, No 39605619, No 39644214, No 39707589, No 39737546, No 39920622, No 30166175, No 30166176, No 30166177, No 30212141, of the word marks ‘KEPROCK’, ‘FLEXIROCK’, ‘FORMROCK’, ‘FLOOR-ROCK’, ‘TERMAROCK’, ‘KLIMAROCK’, ‘SPEEDROCK’, ‘DUROCK’, ‘SPLITROCK’, ‘PLANAROCK’, ‘TOPROCK’, ‘KLEMMROCK’, ‘FLIXROCK’, ‘SONOROCK PLUS’, ‘VARIROCK’, ‘SONOROCK’, AND ‘MASTERROCK’, for goods and services in classes 17, 19 and 37.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request of declaration of invalidity against the CTM registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Nemeco/OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)

(Case T-549/12)

2013/C 63/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nemeco (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Gaspar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision rendered by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Marked (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) on October 16, 2012 (Case No. R 266/2012-2);

—	Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay Nemeco’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘NU’, for goods in class 32 — International Registration No 1 033 122 designating the European Union

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 5386081 of the word mark ‘NU YU’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

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 No 207/2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Oracle America/OHMI — Aava Mobile (AAVA MOBILE)

(Case T-554/12)

2013/C 63/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. 2Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in case R 1205/2011-2 dated October 9, 2012;

—	Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘AAVA MOBILE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 715 385)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 551 626 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 et 45

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Royalton Overseas/OHIM — SC Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)

(Case T-556/12)

2013/C 63/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Năstase, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and design) as of October 4, 2012 and Communicated on October 22, 2012 in the case file No R 2535/2011-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘KAISERHOFF’, for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 9 242 066

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: Romanian trade mark registration No 110 809 of the word mark ‘KAISERHOFF’ for goods in classes 11, 21 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50, corroborated with Rule 20(7) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76(1) and 42(5) of Council Regulation No 2007/2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)

(Case T-557/12)

2013/C 63/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RiskMetrics Solutions LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision in its entirety so that Community Trade Mark No 9 446 881 is accepted and proceeds through to publication;

—	Order OHMI to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RISKMANAGER’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 881

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/23

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Kaatsu International/OHIM (KAATSU)

(Case T-567/12)

2013/C 63/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaatsu International Co. Ltd (Morningside Drive, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision of the Board;

—	Order the defendant to pay to the Applicant the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KAATSU’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10, 16, 28, 41 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 10 179 547

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/23

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)

(Case T-568/12)

2013/C 63/47

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in Case R 2327/2011-4;

—	reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

—	order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘FOCUS extreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 894587

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘FOCUS’ which has been registered under No 2062620, for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/23

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Marouf v Council

(Case T-569/12)

2013/C 63/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Soulieman Marouf (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, T. Eicke, QC, A. Sander, Barrister, and R. Franklin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (as amended) (‘The Council Decision’), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 944/2012 of 15 October 2012 and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (‘The Council Regulations’), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

—

Annul the decision of the Council contained in its letter of 30 November 2012 (Ref No SGS12/013373) ‘that the applicant should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities that appear in Annexes I and II to Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP and in Annex II and IIa to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 …’ (‘the Decision’);

—	Order the European Union to compensate the applicant; and,

—	Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the applicant contends that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or manifest error of assessment on the basis that there is no rational connection between him and the individuals sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union namely those who are responsible for the violent repression of the civilian population in Syria.

Second, the applicant claims that there is an absence of legal basis for Article 24 of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP seeking to prevent his entry into, or transit through, the Member States on the basis of the applicant’s rights as a citizen of the EU under Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC.

Third, that the Council decision and the Council Regulations amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of human Rights including the applicant’s right to human dignity, right to a good administration, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to be presumed innocent and rights of defence, right to respect for his private and family life, home and communications, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Matrix Energetics International/OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)

(Case T-573/12)

2013/C 63/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matrix Energetics International, Inc. (Lynnwood, United States) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of appeal of the Office Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2012 in Case R 56/2012-4;

—	Order the Office Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MATRIX ENERGETICS’ for services in class 41 — International registration No W 995 247

Decision of the Examiner: Refused protection of the International Registration designating the European Union

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

Action brought on 30 December 2012 — Commission v Siemens

(Case T-579/12)

2013/C 63/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Order Siemens AG to pay the applicant EUR 671 234 plus interest in the amount of 5 % above the base interest rate within the meaning of Paragraph 247 of the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, German Civil Code) as from the time when the action was brought;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that under the contract concluded with the defendant it is entitled to demand compensation for the additional costs arising out of the delay in taking back the materials which have been put at its disposal. Such compensation also has to be paid under the German law applicable to the contract, more precisely under Paragraph 304 and also Paragraphs 280 and 286 of the BGB.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

Action brought on 19th December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-155/12)

2013/C 63/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen, Lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to add the applicant on the reserve list of the selection procedure EPSO/AD/215/11.

Form of order sought

—	The annulment of the EPSO decision dated 19 September 2012;

—	if necessary the annulment of the EPSO decision dated 28 June 2012;

—	on a subsidiary level, to be compensated for the prejudice suffered;

—	in any event, order the reimbursement of all costs incurred to ensure the applicant’s defence.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC

(Case F-159/12)

2013/C 63/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and the order to re-instate him in the service and pay him the difference between all the emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision and the monetary compensation he has received.

Form of order sought

—

Annul the contested decision of ECDC of 24.2.2012 to dismiss the applicant, so that, in order to comply with such judgment, ECDC shall be required under Article 266 TFEU to re-instate him in the service and pay him all emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision together with default interest at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points, minus the monetary compensation he has received and the unemployment allowance he will until his re-instatement have received;

—	annul the letter of 18.9.2012 from the Head of ECDC’s OCS Unit rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint against the contested decision, insofar as said letter may produce autonomous legal effects;

—	order ECDC to pay all the costs.

2.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-160/12)

2013/C 63/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): ZZ (represented by: F. A. Rodriguez-Gigirey Perez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11-AD5/AD7.

Form of order sought

—	A declaration that the diploma accompanying the applicant’s candidature fulfils the requirements set out in the official notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11- AD5/AD7 - Administrators;

—	Annulment of the decision notified to the applicant on 29 September 2012, issued by the Competent Authority, dismissing the applicant’s claim in relation to the validity of his university diploma for admission to the open competition;

—

Accordingly, a declaration of the applicant’s right to be included on the reserve list for the filling of posts relating to competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11- AD5/AD7 – Administrators, in the field of economics, Official Journal C 82 A of 16 March 2011, with a sufficient period of validity, equivalent to that of those candidates who were initially included, including reopening that list in the event that it is closed on the date judgment is delivered;

—	Order that the defendant pay the costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.063.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 63

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 56 2 March 2013

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2013/C 063/01	Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 55, 23.2.2013	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2013/C 063/02	Case C-416/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia (Article 267 TFEU — Annulment of a judicial decision — Referral back to the court concerned — Obligation to comply with the annulment decision — Request for a preliminary ruling — Whether possible — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 96/61/EC — Public participation in the decision-making process — Construction of a landfill site — Application for a permit — Trade secrets — Non-communication of a document to the public — Effect on the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site — Rectification — Assessment of the environmental impact of the project — Final opinion prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union — Application in time of Directive 85/337 — Effective legal remedy — Interim measures — Suspension of implementation — Annulment of the contested decision — Right to property — Interference)	2

2013/C 063/03	Case C-206/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb (Consumer protection — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market — Legislation of a Member State providing for prior authorisation of announcements of sales)	3

2013/C 063/04	Case C-224/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — Leasing services supplied together with insurance for the leased item, subscribed to by the lessor and invoiced by the latter to the lessee — Classification — Single complex service or two distinct services — Exemption — Insurance transaction)	4

2013/C 063/05	Case C-360/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Application of a reduced rate — Articles 96 and 98(2) — Points 3 and 4 of Annex III — Pharmaceutical products normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses and as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes — Medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled)	4

2013/C 063/06	Case C-361/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function — CN code 84433191 — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008)	5

2013/C 063/07	Case C-543/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Value-added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) — Land which has not been built on — Building land — Definitions — Demolition work for the purposes of future construction — Exemption from VAT)	5

2013/C 063/08	Case C-623/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Geodis Calberson GE v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) (Agriculture — Food aid — Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 — Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation — Successful tenderer for a contract for the transport of beef — Conferring of jurisdiction — Arbitration clause)	6

2013/C 063/09	Case C-23/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria (Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) — Alleged violation of the right to respect for human dignity — Effective judicial protection — Right of access to a court)	6

2013/C 063/10	Case C-513/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 13 November 2012 — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany	6

2013/C 063/11	Case C-514/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2012 — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Province of Salzburg	7

2013/C 063/12	Case C-528/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2012 — Mömax Logistik GmbH	7

2013/C 063/13	Case C-542/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato	7

2013/C 063/14	Case C-543/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Michal Zeman v Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného zboru v Žiline	8

2013/C 063/15	Case C-560/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Wam Industriale SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission	8

2013/C 063/16	Case C-582/12 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-373/09 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)	9

2013/C 063/17	Case C-584/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by El Corte Inglès, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/09 Pucci International/OHIM v El Corte Inglès (Emidio Tucci)	10

2013/C 063/18	Case C-587/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission	11

2013/C 063/19	Case C-600/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic	11

2013/C 063/20	Case C-608/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2012 by Greinwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-333/11 Nicolas Wessang v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)	12

2013/C 063/21	Case C-615/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission	13

2013/C 063/22	Case C-1/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport	13

2013/C 063/23	Case C-3/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 3 January 2013 — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu-ja Tolliameti Ida maksu-ja tollikeskus	14

2013/C 063/24	Case C-8/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia	14

2013/C 063/25	Case C-9/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia	15

2013/C 063/26	Case C-255/11: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Geldern — Germany) — Nadine Büsch, Björn Siever v Ryanair Ltd	15

2013/C 063/27	Case C-538/11: Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Hermine Sax v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt	15

2013/C 063/28	Case C-112/12: Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hongrie) — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága	15

2013/C 063/29	Case C-307/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria	15

2013/C 063/30	Case C-316/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm v TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aereas S.A.	16

2013/C 063/31	Case C-384/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik, other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock	16

	General Court
2013/C 063/32	Case T-308/00 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Salzgitter AG v European Commission (State aid — Steel industry — Tax incentives for the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic — Non-notified aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery — Delay — Legal certainty — Calculation of the aid to be repaid — Aid falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty — Investments for the protection of the environment — Discount rate)	17

2013/C 063/33	Joined Cases T-225/06 RENV, T-255/06 RENV, T-257/06 RENV and T-309/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD — Appellations bud — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))	17

2013/C 063/34	Case T-46/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Processing of citrus fruits, cotton, beef and olive oil — Financial audit — Key checks — Proportionality — Recurrence — Obligation to state reasons)	18

2013/C 063/35	Case T-355/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark Walzer Traum — Earlier national word mark Walzertraum — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)	18

2013/C 063/36	Joined Cases T-346/11 and T-347/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Activity unconnected with the duties of a Member of the European Parliament — Procedure for waiving immunity — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)	18

2013/C 063/37	Joined Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium XL and Premium L) (Community trade mark — Applications for the Community word marks Premium XL and Premium L — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	19

2013/C 063/38	Case T-137/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2013 — FunFactory v OHIM (Vibrator) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional trade mark — Vibrator — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — The first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — The second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)	19

2013/C 063/39	Case T-451/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)	19

2013/C 063/40	Case T-457/12: Action brought on 18 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)	20

2013/C 063/41	Case T-548/12: Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)	21

2013/C 063/42	Case T-549/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Nemeco/OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)	21

2013/C 063/43	Case T-554/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Oracle America/OHMI — Aava Mobile (AAVA MOBILE)	22

2013/C 063/44	Case T-556/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Royalton Overseas/OHIM — SC Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)	22

2013/C 063/45	Case T-557/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)	22

2013/C 063/46	Case T-567/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Kaatsu International/OHIM (KAATSU)	23

2013/C 063/47	Case T-568/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)	23

2013/C 063/48	Case T-569/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Marouf v Council	23

2013/C 063/49	Case T-573/12: Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Matrix Energetics International/OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)	24

2013/C 063/50	Case T-579/12: Action brought on 30 December 2012 — Commission v Siemens	24

	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2013/C 063/51	Case F-155/12: Action brought on 19th December 2012 — ZZ v Commission	26

2013/C 063/52	Case F-159/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC	26

2013/C 063/53	Case F-160/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v European Commission	26