(2014/C 71/01)

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

OJ C 61, 1.3.2014

Past publications

OJ C 52, 22.2.2014

OJ C 45, 15.2.2014

OJ C 39, 8.2.2014

OJ C 31, 1.2.2014

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014

OJ C 15, 18.1.2014

These texts are available on:

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 5 November 2013 — Nóra Baczó and János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

(Case C-567/13)

(2014/C 71/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai

Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

Questions referred

1.

In proceedings brought before a local court for a declaration of the invalidity of a contract (standard contract terms), in which the consumer also seeks in his application a declaration of the unfairness of a term of the contract at issue in the proceedings, and thereby provides a basis for the jurisdiction of another court, the county court (törvényszék), is there a disadvantage for the consumer, given that, in proceedings brought by the other party to the contract, the consumer can rely on the unfairness of a contract term (1) before the local court, and transfer to the county court burdens the consumer with higher costs?

2.	Would the situation be more equal if, in proceedings brought by the consumer before the local court for a declaration of the invalidity of a contract, the consumer were able also to rely on the unfairness of a term of the contract, as a result of which that local court would have jurisdiction?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

(Case C-573/13)

(2014/C 71/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Questions referred

1.	Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated when the prices of air services are shown for the first time?

2.	Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Mertin Meat Kft. v Géza Simonfay and Others

(Case C-586/13)

(2014/C 71/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mertin Meat Kft.

Defendant: Géza Simonfay and Others

Questions referred

1.

Is there a posting of workers according to European law, and specifically according to the definition of posting of workers contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09 (1) where a contractor undertakes to process sides of beef, using its own workforce, in premises rented from the client in the client’s slaughterhouse and packages them in market-ready packs of meat, and a price is payable to the contractor per kilogram of processed meat, and in the event that the processing is of insufficient quality the contractor has to accept a deduction from the price for meat processing, bearing in mind that in the host State the contractor supplies the service exclusively to that client and the client also monitors the quality of the meat processing work?

2.

Is the chief principle established by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09, according to which the posting of workers can be subject to limitations while the transitional derogation from freedom of movement for workers under the Accession Treaties for the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 is in force, also applicable to the movement of workers in the course of a posting of workers who are sent to Austria by a company established in a Member State which acceded on 1 May 2004 if such movement occurs in a sector which is not protected under the Accession Treaty?

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 November 2013 — F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt

(Case C-589/13)

(2014/C 71/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt

Defendant authority: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

Question referred

Is Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) to be interpreted as precluding a system for the taxation of the investment income and earnings from the disposal of holdings of an Austrian private foundation in the case where that system provides for a tax charge to be imposed on the foundation in the form of an ‘interim tax’ in order to ensure once-only national taxation only in the case where, on the basis of a double taxation convention, the recipient of donations from the private foundation is granted relief from the tax on capital gains which in principle is chargeable on donations?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2013 — ‘go fair’ Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

(Case C-594/13)

(2014/C 71/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘go fair’Zeitarbeit OHG

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona

Questions referred

1.

On the interpretation of Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax: (a) Can a Member State exercise the discretion it enjoys in the context of recognising a body as being devoted to social wellbeing in such a way that, while it recognises persons who provide their services to social security funds and care funds, it does not also recognise State-examined care workers who provide their services directly to persons in need of care? (b) If State-examined care workers are to be recognised as being devoted to social wellbeing, does the recognition of a temporary work agency which hires out State-examined care workers to recognised care establishments (host establishments) follow from the recognition of the staff hired out?

2.

On the interpretation of Article 134(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax: Is the supply of State-examined care workers, as a transaction closely linked to welfare and social security work, essential to the provision of care services to the host establishment (user undertaking), if the host establishment cannot operate without staff?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Duravit AG and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-364/10 Duravit AG and Others v European Commission

(Case C-609/13 P)

(2014/C 71/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA (represented by: Dr. U. Soltész, LL.M. and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1.	Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case T-364/10 in so far as that judgment dismissed the appellants’ action;

2.	Annul in their entirety, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, Articles 1(1), 2 and 3 of the Decision of the European Commission of 23 June 2010, C(2010) 4185 final, in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures, in so far as it concerns the appellants;

3.	In the alternative (in relation to head of claim No 2), annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellants in the abovementioned Decision;

4.	In the further alternative (in relation to heads of claim Nos 2 and 3), refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision which is consistent with the legal assessment in the Court’s judgment;

5.	In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs they have incurred in respect of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants put forward six grounds of appeal in total.

First, the General Court infringed Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair hearing (Articles 47 and 48(1) in conjunction with Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) and (2) ECHR) because it refused to carry out a full review of the contested decision, which had been expressly requested, assumed that the Commission’s findings of facts and law were correct and did not sufficiently exercise its own discretion in fixing the amount of the fine.

Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU, the appellants’ right to an effective remedy (the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the principle of equality of arms by carrying out its judicial review inadequately and exceeding the limits of that review to the detriment of the appellants.

Thirdly, the General Court, in a number of respects, obviously and in a manner which was relevant to the decision, distorted the clear sense of the evidence in the file and consequently erred in law and infringed the recognised rules of evidence.

Fourthly, the General Court made procedural errors and infringed Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the appellants’ rights of the defence, their right to a fair hearing and the principle of equality of arms by using, to the detriment of the appellants, evidence which was unusable and submitted out of time and belated arguments of the Commission and by erring in law in rejecting all of the appellants’ requests for measures of inquiry with an insufficient statement of reasons.

Fifthly, the General Court misapplied Article 101 TFEU and infringed its obligation to state reasons by holding that the Commission was right in accusing the appellants of participating in a single, cross-product infringement in respect of taps and fittings, shower enclosures and ceramic sanitary ware.

Sixthly, the General Court misapplied Article 101 TFEU by applying an incorrect criterion in assessing an exchange of information under Article 101(1) TFEU, assuming that the appellants were under an obligation to distance themselves from the discussions of non-competing undertakings and regarding alleged ‘attempted agreements’ on special occasions in cross-product associations as a completed infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-111/11: ClientEarth v Commission

(Case C-612/13 P)

(2014/C 71/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the General Court judgment of 13 September 2013 in case T-111/11;

—	order the Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law, through the application of an erroneous interpretation of the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘undermine the protection of (…) the purpose of (…) investigations’ as set out in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1). The General Court erred in law when it stated, categorically, that ‘the studies at issue are part of an investigation conducted by the Commission, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001’. As a first branch of this ground of appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the term ‘investigation’. Second branch: even considering that an investigation took place, the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the term ‘undermine’. The General Court linked the concept of disclosure with the concept of undermining, without providing a concrete demonstration of how exactly disclosure would have undermined the ‘purpose’ of investigations.

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law through a violation of Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 and approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (2). This ground of appeal consists of five arguments. First, the General Court erred in a restrictive way in its application of the obligation to interpret Article 4(4)(c) of the Aarhus Convention. Secondly, the General Court erred in its application of the measure in question in light of the Aarhus Convention. Third, the General Court erred in its obligation to interpret the Aarhus Convention in accordance with customary international law. Fourth, the General Court erred in its refusal of direct applicability of Articles 4 and 4(4)(c) of the Aarhus Convention. Finally, the General court erred in its application of the law in its acceptance of a derogation from the application of the Aarhus Convention based on the ‘specific features’ of the European Union.

3.

Third ground of appeal in law, alleging the violation by the General Court of Articles 6(1) of Regulation No. 1367/2006 (3) and 4(2) in fine and 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001. The General Court erred in law by grounding its refusal to acknowledge the existence of overriding public interests in disclosure only on the analysis of the arguments put forward by the applicant. This approach is contrary to the provisions of Regulation No. 1049/2001 as well as to relevant case law. In fact, the arguments put forward by an applicant in this respect cannot per se be the reason why the existence of overriding public interests is denied, because the law does not set the burden of proof of overriding circumstances on the applicant. The balance of the interests at stake in disclosure must be carried out by the institution concerned.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

OJ L 145, p. 43

(2)  2005/370/EC: Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

OJ L 124, p. 1

(3)  Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.

OJ L 264, p. 13

Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-214/11: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

(Case C-615/13 P)

(2014/C 71/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ClientEarth, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the General Court judgment of 13 September 2013 in case T-214/11;

—	order EFSA to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of the legal concept of ‘personal data’ as defined by Article 2 of Regulation No. 45/2001 (1). The General Court erred in finding that the combination of names and opinions constitutes personal data. The concept of ‘personal data’ does not include opinions provided in the course of participation in a public committee where experts, whose names and other personal details are publicly available, are called on to participate due to their renowned expertise.

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of Articles 4(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (2) and Article 8(b) of Regulation No. 45/2001 with regard to the scope, procedure and substance of these provisions, in particular by failing to consider and balance all the interests protected by those measures. The General Court failed to fully consider all aspects of the provisions which were found to be applicable: Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 8(b) of Regulation No. 45/2001. It failed to consider and take account of the different interests protected under both measures.

3.	Third ground of appeal, alleging violation of Article 5 of the TEU by imposing a disproportionate burden of proof upon the Appellants in requiring them to show the necessity for the transfer of information and the scope of legitimate interests protected.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.

OJ L 8, p. 1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

OJ L 145, p. 43

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

(Case C-629/13)

(2014/C 71/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 1 of the Eleventh Council Directive concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (1) preclude refusal in a Member State to remove from the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) a branch of a company established in another Member State in so far as that branch has not been wound up in accordance with the procedure laid down for winding up a domestic limited liability company, whereas such a procedure does not have to be carried out to remove a branch of a domestic company from the register? In the case of domestic companies, branches are entered only in the registration of the domestic company and that company is obliged to submit a consolidated financial statement covering the parent company and its branches, whilst branches of foreign companies are registered in the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) and submit to the register only a financial statement for the branch.

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 36.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-633/13)

(2014/C 71/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of obligations relating to price controls, national regulatory authorities may impose on operators with significant market power an obligation consisting in a prohibition on the application of excessive voice call termination rates in the telephone network of such operators?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 5 December 2013 — Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito v Evaristo Méndez Sena and Others

(Case C-645/13)

(2014/C 71/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito

Defendants: Evaristo Méndez Sena, Edelmira Pérez Vicente, Daniel Méndez Sena, Victoriana Pérez Bicéntez

Questions referred

1.

Must the legislation of a Member State under which no provision is made for a right of appeal to a higher court in the event of the dismissal of an application, made in the course of mortgage enforcement proceedings, to have a contractual term disapplied on the ground that it is unfair, be interpreted as failing to provide adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers, and as failing to observe the right to take action before the competent national courts for a decision as to whether contractual terms drawn up for general use are unfair, so that those courts can apply appropriate and effective means to prevent the continued use of such terms?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, may the national court — in order to ensure that consumers are adequately and effectively protected against unfair contractual terms — of its own motion grant a consumer the right to have a higher court review the decision at first instance dismissing the application by that consumer to have a contractual term disapplied on the ground that it is unfair?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 12 December 2013 — Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hilden

(Case C-657/13)

(2014/C 71/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Hilden

Question referred

Is it consistent with the freedom of establishment under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if, upon the transfer of an asset from a domestic to a foreign permanent establishment of the same undertaking, a national rule stipulates that there is a withdrawal for non-business purposes, with the result that the disclosure of hidden reserves leads to a profit upon the withdrawal, and another national rule provides the possibility of distributing that profit equally over five or ten financial years?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 December 2013 — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-659/13)

(2014/C 71/14)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

1.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it violates Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2)] given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were not sampled in accordance with Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation?

2.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation of the market economy treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were not sampled pursuant to Article 17 of the basic antidumping Regulation?

3.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation of the market economy treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were sampled pursuant to Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation?

4.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Articles 3, 4(1), 5(4), and 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that insufficient Community industry producers cooperated so as to allow the Commission to make a valid injury assessment and, as a result, a valid. Causation assessment?

5.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 3(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] and Article 253 of the EC treaty given that evidence in the investigation file showed that the Community industry injury was assessed using materially flawed data, and given that the Regulation does not provide any explanation why this evidence was ignored?

6.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 3(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the effects of other factors known to be causing injury were not properly separated and distinguished from the effects of the allegedly dumped imports?

7.

To what extent may Member State courts rely on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 made by the Court of Justice in the framework of cases C-249/10 P Brosmann and C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang to consider that duties were not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code [Council Regulation 2913/92 (3)] for companies that, just as the Appellants in the Brosmann and Zhejiang Aokang cases, were not sampled but did submit market economy treatment and individual treatment requests that were not examined?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam

OJ L 275, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 56, p. 1

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code

OJ L 302, p. 1

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 December 2013 — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

(Case C-664/13)

(2014/C 71/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

Respondent: K. Nīmanis

Question referred

Must Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, in conjunction with the first sentence of the second recital in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the only means of proving that a person is normally resident in that State (Latvia) is the declared residence of that person? ‘Declared residence’ must be understood as meaning the obligation of the person, in accordance with the national legislation, to be registered in a state register, in order to notify his accessibility at the declared residence for the purposes of his legal relations with the State and the local authorities.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 December 2013 — VĮ ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ and Nemaniūnas

(Case C-671/13)

(2014/C 71/16)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: VĮ ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ and Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas

Other parties: Vitoldas Guliavičius and the bank ‘Snoras’, an insolvent public limited company

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19, (1) applied in conjunction with point 12 of Annex I to that directive, to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State excludes from the guarantee depositors of a credit institution who possess debt securities (certificates of deposit) issued by that institution, that exclusion can be applied only in the event that the abovementioned certificates of deposit fully conform to (possess) all the features characterising them as financial instruments within the meaning of Directive 2004/39 (2) (having regard also to other measures of European Union law, for example, Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 of the European Central Bank), inter alia their negotiability on a secondary financial market?

2.

If the relevant Member State elects to transpose Directives 94/19 and 97/9 (3) into national law in such a way that schemes for depositor and investor protection are laid down in a single legal measure (a law), are Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19, applied in conjunction with point 12 of Annex I to that directive, and Article 2(2) of Directive 97/9, taking account of Article 2(3) of Directive 97/9, to be understood and interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for no protection (guarantee) scheme for the purposes of the abovementioned directives to apply to holders of certificates of deposit and of bonds?

3.

Having regard to the fact that under national legislation none of the possible protection schemes provided for in Directives 94/19 and 97/9 is applicable to holders of certificates of deposit and bonds issued by a credit institution: (a) Do Article 3(1), Article 7(1) (as subsequently amended by Directive 2009/14) and Article 10(1) of Directive 94/19, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that directive which defines the term ‘deposit’, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, so that they could be relied upon by individuals before a national court to found their claims for payment of compensation against the insurer which has been established by the State and is responsible for making payment? (b) Do Articles 2(2) and 4(1) of Directive 97/9 display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, so that they could be relied upon by individuals before a national court to found their claims for payment of compensation against the insurer which has been established by the State and is responsible for making payment? (c) Should the above questions (3(a) and 3(b)) be answered in the affirmative, which of the two possible protection regimes must a national court choose to apply when deciding a dispute between a private person and a credit institution and involving the participation of the insurer, established by the State, responsible for administration of the depositor and investor protection schemes?

4.

Are Articles 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 97/9 (in conjunction with Annex I to that directive) to be understood and interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the investor-compensation scheme is not applicable to investors who possess debt securities issued by a credit institution by reason of the type of financial instrument (debt securities) and having regard to the fact that the entity with insurance (the credit institution) has not transferred or used investors’ funds or securities without the investor’s consent? Is it relevant to the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 97/9, as regards investor protection, that the credit institution which has issued the debt securities — the issuer — is at the same time also the custodian of those financial instruments (intermediary) and that the investors’ funds are not separated from other funds of the credit institution?

---

(1)  Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).

(2)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22).

Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2013 in Case T-545/11: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Commission

(Case C-673/13 P)

(2014/C 71/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	quash the judgment of the General Court;

—	pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, either give a final ruling on the first and third pleas itself or refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on those please; and

—	order the respondents to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal consists of one plea, namely that the General Court misconstrued the concept of information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ in the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (1) (‘the Aarhus Regulation’), dismissing the Commission's view that this concept must be interpreted in a consistent and harmonious way in the light of the other provisions in issue. There are three branches to this plea:

(i)

the General Court erred in disregarding the need to ensure the ‘internal’ consistency of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2) read with Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, as understood in the light of Article 4(4) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’);

(ii)

the General Court failed to take due account of the confidentiality provisions in sector-specific legislation on plant protection products, namely Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (4); and

(iii)

the General Court erred in disregarding the need to construe Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation in so far as possible in conformity with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’).

---

(1)  OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(3)  OJ L 230, 19.08.1991, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD

(Case C-681/13)

(2014/C 71/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Diageo Brands BV

Respondent: Simiramida-04 EOOD

Questions referred

1.	Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that ground for refusal is also applicable in a case where the decision of the court of the Member State of origin is manifestly contrary to European Union law, and that fact has been recognised by that court?

2.

(a) Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that successful reliance on that ground for refusal is precluded by the fact that the party which has recourse to that ground for refusal failed to make use of the legal remedies available in the Member State of origin of the decision? (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative, would the position be different if the utilisation of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin of the decision was pointless because it has to be assumed that it would not have led to any different decision?

3.

Must Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that that provision is also applicable to the costs incurred by the parties in the context of proceedings for damages brought in a Member State if the claim and the defence relate to the alleged liability of the defendant by reason of the seizures which it made and the notices which it served with a view to enforcing its trade mark rights in another Member State, and in that connection a question arises concerning the recognition in the former Member State of a decision of the court in the latter Member State?

---

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

(2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2013 — X AB v Skatteverket

(Case C-686/13)

(2014/C 71/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Do Article 49 TFEU and Article 63 TFEU preclude national legislation according to which the Member State of domicile does not grant a deduction for a currency loss which is an integral part of a capital gain or capital loss on holdings for business purposes in a company which is domiciled in another Member State, where the Member State of domicile applies a system under which capital gains and capital losses on such assets are wholly exempt from taxation?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen and Nadine Schönherr

(Case C-2/14)

(2014/C 71/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen

Nadine Schönherr

Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Are medicinal products, as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) which contain ‘scheduled substances’ listed in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 (2) and (EC) No 111/2005 (3) always excluded from the scope of those regulations in accordance with Article 2(a) of those regulations, or is that to be presumed only where the medicinal products are compounded in such a way that the scheduled substances cannot for the purposes of those regulations be easily used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 6 January 2014 — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz

(Case C-4/14)

(2014/C 71/21)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christophe Bohez

Defendant: Ingrid Wiertz

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 1(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cases concerning the enforcement of a penalty payment (astreinte) imposed to ensure compliance with the principal obligation in a case concerning child custody or rights of access are outside the scope of the regulation?

2.

If the cases set out in the preceding paragraph fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a periodic penalty payment which is enforceable as such in the amount stated in the State in which judgment was given, but whose final amount may be changed on the application or arguments of the party subject to the penalty payment, is enforceable in a Member State only if its amount has been separately determined in the State in which judgment was given?

3.

If cases such as those identified above are outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 47(1) of the Brussels IIa Regulation (2) to be interpreted as meaning that sanctions and protective measures concerning child custody and rights of access fall within the enforcement procedure referred to in that provision which is governed by the legislation of the Member State of enforcement, or can they form part of the judgment concerning child custody and rights of access which is enforceable in another Member State under the Brussels IIa Regulation?

4.

When enforcement of a penalty payment is sought in another Member State, is it a requirement that the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced has been finally determined separately in the Member State in which judgment was given, even if the Brussels I Regulation does not apply in the enforcement proceedings?

5.

If a periodic penalty payment (astreinte) imposed as a means to ensure compliance with rights of access is enforceable in another Member State without the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced having separately been finally determined: (a) does the enforcement of the penalty payment nevertheless require a review of whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on obstacles which it was essential to take into consideration on account of the rights of children, and (b) which court has jurisdiction to examine such factors, more specifically, (i) is the jurisdiction of the court of the State of enforcement always limited solely to an examination of whether the alleged failure to comply with rights of access has occurred for reasons which are expressly set out in the judgment in the main proceedings, or (ii) does it follow from the protection of the rights of children in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the court of the State of enforcement has a more extensive right or obligation to examine whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on grounds which it was essential to take into consideration in order to safeguard the rights of children?

---

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

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

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-44/14)

(2014/C 71/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 (1) establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur);

—	order the European Parliament and Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol in conjunction with Article 5 thereof. Article 19 of the Eurosur Regulation establishes an ad hoc procedure for the participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland through cooperation agreements. It therefore establishes a procedure for the participation of those Member States distinct from that provided for in Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol, effectively placing the United Kingdom and Ireland in the position of a third country outside the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 295, p. 11.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie v Commission

(Case T-384/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2014/C 71/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG (Unterneukirchen, Germany); and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH (Unterneukirchen) (represented by: initially, A. Birnstiel, S. Janka and S. Dierckens, lawyers and, subsequently, A. Birnstiel and S. Janka)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. von Lingen and A. Antoniadis, Agents, and by A. Böhlka, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Gigaset AG (formerly Arques Industries AG) (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, A. Scheidtmann and B. Meyring, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it applies to the applicants, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Gigaset AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Evonik Degussa and AlzChem v Commission

(Case T-391/09) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Market in calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Duration of the infringement - Joint and several liability for payment of a fine - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2014/C 71/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) and AlzChem AG, formerly AlzChem Trostberg GmbH, formerly AlzChem Hart GmbH (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, O. Andresen and I. Bodenstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. von Lingen and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) in so far as it relates to the applicants or, in the alternative, an application for amendment of that decision seeking, first, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants and, second, that that fine be imposed in its entirety on SKW Stahl Technik GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally with the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Article 2(g) and (h) of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) in so far as it relates to Evonik Degussa GmbH and AlzChem AG subject to the qualification that that annulment does not have a bearing on the discharging effect of any payment made by one or other of those two companies in connection with the fine imposed jointly and severally in respect of the finding of infringement in Article 1(f) of that decision against Stahl Technik GmbH & Co. KG and on the relief afforded to Stahl Technik GmbH & Co. KG and on the fine which was imposed on it under Article 2(g) of that decision;

2.

In respect of the infringement findings in Article 1(f) of Decision C(2009) 5791 final against Evonik Degussa and AlzChem, the following fines shall be imposed: — on Evonik Degussa and AlzChem jointly and severally: EUR 2.49 million, subject to the qualification that Evonik Degussa et AlzChem will be deemed to have satisfied the payment of that fine up to the amount paid by SKW Stahl Technik in respect of the fine which was imposed on it under Article 2(g) of that decision; — on Evonik Degussa, exclusively liable for payment of that fine, EUR 1.24 million;

3.	The action is dismissed as to the remainder;

4.	Evonik Degussa and AlzChem shall bear two-thirds of their own costs and two-thirds of those of the European Commission. The Commission shall bear one-third of its own costs and one-third of those of Evonik Degussa and AlzChem.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Gigaset v Commission

(Case T-395/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Joint and several liability for payment of a fine - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2014/C 71/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gigaset AG, formerly Arques Industries AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, B. Meyring and A. Scheidtmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it relates to the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Gigaset AG under Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) at EUR 12.3 million;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Orders Gigaset to bear 90 % of its own costs and 90 % of those incurred by the Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. The Court orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs and 10 % of the costs incurred by Gigaset, with the exception of the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council

(Case T-528/09) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Determination of a threat of injury - Article 3(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 3(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

(2014/C 71/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (Huang Shi, China) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, lawyer, A. MacGregor, Solicitor, and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: H. van Vliet and M. França, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, lawyer); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania); Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (Paderborn, Germany); Ovako Tube & Ring AB (Hofors, Sweden); Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH (Sulzbach-Rosenberg Germany); Dalmine SpA (Dalmine, Italy); Silcotub SA (Zalău, Romania); TMK-Artrom SA (Slatina, Romania); Tubos Reunidos SA (Amurrio, Spain); Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France (Aulnoye-Aymeries, France); V & M France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); V & M Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH (Linz, Austria); and Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (Podbrezová, Slovakia) (represented by: G. Berrisch, G. Wolf, lawyers, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 262, p. 19).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports of products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd and collects provisional duties imposed on those exports;

2.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

4.

Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, V & M France, V & M Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH and Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2014 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)

(Case T-216/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark IMPERIA - Earlier Community figurative mark IMPERIAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Progust, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: initially M. E. López Camba, J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, then J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela et I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sopralex & Vosmarques SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and V. Fossoul, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2011 (Case R 1036/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sopralex & Vosmarques SA and Progust, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Progust, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2014 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

(Case T-495/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PARAMETRICA - Earlier national word mark parameta - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2014/C 71/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Michael Streng (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Pappert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fulvio Gismondi (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, G. Petrocchi, M. Bucarelli and F. Bellan, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2011 (Case R 1348/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Michael Streng and Mr Fulvio Gismondi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Michael Streng to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2014 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana)

(Case T-600/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community Carrera panamericana - Earlier Community figurative mark CARRERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carrera SpA (Caldiero, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 1989/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Carrera SpA and Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

(Case T-158/12) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tender procedure - External service provision for software applications - Decision to classify the applicant’s tender in second place for the purposes of a cascading contract - Award criteria - Addition of award criterion not provided for by the contract documents - Assessment of a selection criterion at the award stage - Transparency)

(2014/C 71/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece); and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and C. Maignen, acting as Agents, assisted initially by H. G. Kamann and E. Arsenidou, and subsequently by H. G. Kamann et A. Dritsa, lawyers)

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of European Medicines Agency decision EMA/67882/2012 of 31 January 2012 to classify the applicants’ tender in second place for signing a framework-contract, following the call for tender EMA/2011/17/ICT on the external service provision for software applications, and (ii) for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai and European Dynamics UK Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)

(Case T-221/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SUN FRESH - Earlier Community, Benelux and national word and figurative marks SUNNY FRESH, SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH and SUNNYFRESH - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of the genuine use of earlier marks - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Sunrider Corporation (Torrance, California, United States) (represented by: N. Dontas and E. Markakis, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG (Anthering bei Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2401/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Sunrider Corporation and Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders The Sunrider Corporation to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN GETAWAY)

(Case T-513/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NORWEGIAN GETAWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2012 (Case R 1014/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign NORWEGIAN GETAWAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders NCL Corporation Ltd., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY)

(Case T-514/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NCL (Miami, Florida, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2012 (Case R 1017/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders NCL Corporation Ltd., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)

(Case T-551/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Rebella - Earlier Community word mark SEMBELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sembella GmbH (Timelkam, Austria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2012 (Case R 1681/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Sembella GmbH and Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)

(Case T-47/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark goldstück - Earlier Community word mark GOLDSTEIG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (Cham, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christin Vieweg (Sonneberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 2589/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH and Ms Christin Vieweg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Novartis v OHIM (CARE TO CARE)

(Case T-68/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark CARE TO CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (Case R 953/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CARE TO CARE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Commission v BO

(Case T-174/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Contractual agents - Social security - Reimbursement of transport costs - Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons - Article 19(2) of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities - Paragraph 2.5 in Chapter 12 of Title II of the general implementing directives concerning the reimbursement of medical costs)

(2014/C 71/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: BO (Amman, Jordan) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) on 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11 BO v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its costs and those incurred by BO in the context of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

(Case T-134/12) (1)

(Action for annulment and damages - Contracts concerning financial assistance from the European Union for research and development projects - Plea of inadmissibility - Failure to reclassify forms of order sought - In admissible)

(2014/C 71/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, Agents, and J. Rivas Andrés and X. García García, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision in the Commission’s letter of 13 January 2012 concerning the reimbursement of the sums mentioned in the debit notes corresponding to the financial audit to which the applicant was subject and, second, a claim for non-contractual liability seeking an order for the Commission to pay damages and interest of EUR 732 768.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Lebedef v Commission

(Joined Cases T-116/13 P and T-117/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Reports - Career development report - 2008 and 2009 evaluation period - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff evaluation reports covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Designation for union purpose - Actions dismissed at first instance as manifestly unfounded - Appeal dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded)

(2014/C 71/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Two appeals brought against the orders of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012, in Case F 70/11 Lebedef v Commission and in Case F 109/11 Lebedef v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking an order that those orders be set aside.

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeals are dismissed.

2.	Mr Giorgio Lebedef will bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2014 — Miettinen v Council

(Case T-303/13) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service - Refusal of access - Disclosure after the action was brought - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2014/C 71/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pellinghelli and É. Sitbon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 25 March 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to the full text of the opinion of the Council’s Legal Service, reference 15309/12.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

2.	The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

3.	There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Zoltán Lomnici v European Parliament

(Case T-650/13)

(2014/C 71/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Zoltán Lomnici (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Lomnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 concerning Petition No 1298/2012

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea of failure to observe the obligation to state reasons and breach of the right of every Union citizen to a fair hearing. In that regard, he points out, inter alia, that his petition was filed without further action without any reasons being given, that he was not invited to the meeting and that he was not notified of the decision.

Action brought on 19 December 2013 — Axa Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-677/13)

(2014/C 71/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested refusal;

—	in the alternative, annul the contested refusal in part;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2013 concerning its second application for access to the Commission’s file in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass.

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

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the duty to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission failed to comply with its duty under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents. Instead, it wrongfully categorised the documents concerned on the basis of formal criteria.

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the refusal of access to specific documents in the file. — By this plea, the applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully gave too broad an interpretation to the scope of the exceptions set out in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant takes the view that commercial interests would not be undermined, within the terms of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and that the Commission is not entitled to invoke the protection of investigations under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. — In addition, it submits that the decision-making process would not be seriously undermined (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001). — Furthermore, the Commission is wrong to deny that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the documents requested.

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the total refusal to grant access to specific documents — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to grant even partial access to the relevant documents. The Commission failed to examine whether access could be granted to some of the documents, thereby infringing the requirements of Regulation No 1049/2001.

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2), the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) and Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the refusal to grant access to the complete version of the contents page of the Commission’s file — In this context, the applicant claims that the Commission gave too broad an interpretation to the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 also in relation to the applicant’s request for access to the unredacted version of the contents page. The applicant takes the view that, in this regard too, commercial interests, under the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and the protection of investigations, under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, could not be undermined. — In addition, it submits that the privacy of the individual under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 would also not be undermined.

5.

Fifth plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons — The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission included merely general statements for refusal of the application for access to the file and failed to ensure the treatment of individual documents or of correctly established categories of documents, as it was legally required to do.

---

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

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)

(Case T-717/13)

(2014/C 71/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chair Entertainment Group LLC (Utah, United States of America) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Libelle AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2013 given in Case R 776/2011-2;

—	Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SHADOW COMPLEX’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 235 434

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: The word mark ‘DBShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 457 944, the word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 3 749 439, the German word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 and the German word mark ‘FSShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-718/13)

(2014/C 71/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States of America) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2013 given in Case R 1812/2012-2 and accordingly acknowledge the validity of the contested trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 163 138

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked partially the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked the Community trade mark in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 CTMR

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Gat Microencapsulation/OHMI — BASF (KARIS)

(Case T-720/13)

(2014/C 71/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gat Microencapsulation AG (Ebenfurth, Austria) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma and M. C. March Cabrelles, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision insofar appeal submitted by the appellant/applicant was rejected;

—	Order OHIM and the interveners to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gat Microencapsulation AG

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KARIS’, for a list of goods and services in Classes 1, 5 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BASF SE

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; international trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; Hungarian, Italian and Benelux trade mark ‘AKRIS’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial rejection of the opposition

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

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

(Case T-8/14)

(2014/C 71/46)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

—	Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned:‘Just crunch it …’ word mark for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 713 485.

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1921/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

(Case T-9/14)

(2014/C 71/47)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

—	Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Just crunch it …’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 716 711

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1922/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Hungary v European Commission

(Case T-13/14)

(2014/C 71/48)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 7136 of 31 October 2013 on the partial repayment of national financial assistance granted to producer organisations for operational programmes carried out in Hungary in 2011.

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Commission exceeded its powers and breached the relevant provisions of European Union law in establishing the amount of the partial repayment to Hungary of the national financial assistance granted in 2011 to producer organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector.

The applicant argues that European Union law does not allow the Commission, in its decision on the partial Community repayment of the national financial assistance granted pursuant to Article 103e of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to producer organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector, to grant the repayment of only those amounts which were described as ‘estimated’ or ‘predicted’ by Hungary in its application for the grant of national assistance.

The applicant takes the view that, under Article 103e of Regulation No 1234/2007, the Commission’s authorisation for national assistance relates to the grant of aid and not to the establishment, by the Commission, of an upper limit on the assistance which can be granted. According to the applicant, such an upper limit is unequivocally laid down by Regulation No 1234/2007, which provides that national assistance may not exceed 80 % of financial contributions to the operating funds of the members or of producer organisations. Nor do the rules on the partial Community repayment of national assistance allow the Commission, when authorising such partial repayment, to set as an upper limit for repayment the amount which the Member State indicated to the Commission in its application, either as the total amount of assistance or as the amount of assistance envisaged for certain producer organisations, particularly where the Hungarian Government stated that those amounts were merely projected or estimated amounts.

Moreover, the applicant states that the Commission is entitled to verify that the assistance actually paid did not exceed the above-mentioned upper limit of 80 % and that the repayment requested does not exceed 60 % of the assistance granted, but not to set as an upper limit for repayment the amounts given in the application for authorisation, especially when that application stresses the provisional or estimated character of the data. Where — for certain reasons — the amount of the national assistance granted to a given producer organisation changes during the year, partial Community repayment will be granted on the basis of the amount actually paid, provided that the requirements of European Union law in that regard are fulfilled.

---

(1)  1Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products.

Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others/Council

(Case T-14/14)

(2014/C 71/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran), Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran), Khazar Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran), IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Qeshm Island, Iran), Irano — Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran), Shipping Computer Services Co. (Tehran), Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management (Tehran), South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran); and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

Annul Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013, amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1);

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that there is no proper legal basis for the contested measures, which include as listing criteria a connection with the first applicant (IRISL), shortly after the latter succeeded in its application for annulment.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata and non-discrimination.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence by not informing IRISL or the other applicants that it intended to enact the contested measures and not giving the applicants a chance to make observations.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to respect for their reputation and property.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting IRISL and connected companies in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.

Action brought on 20 January 2014 — HTTS and Bateni v Council

(Case T-45/14)

(2014/C 71/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and Naser Bateni (Hamburg) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The first applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant;

—	order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the first applicant.

The second applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant;

—	annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant;

—	order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the second applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants put forward four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law: Unlawfulness and inapplicability of the amended version of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, (1) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU In this context, the applicants submit, inter alia, that the Council altered the legal basis for their inclusion in the sanctions lists in order to be able to impose sanctions on them. The Council therefore manifestly misused its discretionary power by altering the legal basis.

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the requirement to state reasons In this regard, the applicants submit in essence that the Council provided insufficient grounds for their inclusion in the sanctions lists. There is a total lack of any statement of reasons for essential factors on which the Commission relies in its decision.

3.	Third plea in law: Lack of a basis for the applicants’ inclusion in the sanctions lists By this plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council’s statement of reasons cannot in substance justify the applicants’ renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists.

4.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the right to property, the right freely to conduct business, the right to respect for family life and the principle of proportionality Finally, the applicants submit that their renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists infringes their right to property and to conduct business freely, as well as the second applicant’s right to respect for family life. The applicants are of the view that their inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes a disproportionate interference, is manifestly inappropriate to realise the objectives pursued by the contested legal acts and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

---

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

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Goldfish and Others v Commission

(Case T-54/14)

(2014/C 71/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp), and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—	annul, fully or in part, the Decision insofar as it is addressed to the applicants;

—	annul, or reduce, the fine imposed on the applicants;

—	adopt the measures which the Court considers necessary;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest the decision of the Commission of 27 November 2013 in a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.39633 — Shrimps).

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) due to the Commission’s use of secretly-recorded audio recordings as evidence of infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 due to the Commission’s use of notes from secretly-recorded audio recordings as evidence of infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging an unlawful refusal to apply paragraph 35 of the Fining Guidelines, (2) due to the Commission refusing to take into account the inability of the applicants to pay the fine.

---

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

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2014 — Hanwha SolarOne and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-136/13) (1)

(2014/C 71/52)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

Order of the General Court of 10 January 2014 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)

(Case T-555/13) (1)

(2014/C 71/53)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Birkhoff v Commission

(Case F-60/09)

(Civil service - Officials - Referral to the Tribunal after annulment - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Child prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood - Application for extension of payment of the allowance)

(2014/C 71/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment — Officials — Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for an extension of payment of the dependent child allowance under Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action.

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Birkhoff in Case F-60/09 and Case T-10/11 P.

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs in Case F-60/09 RENV.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Andres and Others v ECB

(Case F-15/10) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Reform of the insurance scheme - Freezing of the pension plan - Implementation of the pensions regime - Consultation of the supervisory committee - Consultation of the staff committee - Consultation of the General Council - Consultation of the Governing Council - Triennial assessment of the pension plan - Infringement of the conditions of employment - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Acquired rights - Principle of legal certainty and foreseeability - Duty to provide information)

(2014/C 71/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Carlos Andres and Others (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Kroppenstedt and F. Malfrère, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

First, application to annul the applicants’ salary slips for June 2009, and all the subsequent salary slips and those to be issued in the future, in so far as those slips constitute the implementation of the reform of the pensions regime decided upon on 4 May 2009. Secondly, an application for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Andres and the 168 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 54.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Faita v EESC

(Case F-92/11) (1)

(Civil service - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Grounds of a decision)

(2014/C 71/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Economic and Social Committee refusing the applicant’s request for acknowledgement that she was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and for measures to be taken in order to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Faita to bear her costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee;

3.	Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear one quarter of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011 p. 46.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 — Possanzini, v Frontex

(Case F-124/11) (1)

(Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Career development report containing negative assessments of the reporting officer not communicated to the person concerned - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Decision based on the opinion of the reporting officer - Rights of defence - Infringement - Dispute of a financial character - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2014/C 71/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision to revoke the decision to renew the applicant’s temporary employment contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Annuls the decision of 28 March 2011 not to renew the contract of Mr Possanzini as a member of the temporary staff, adopted by the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

2.	Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay Mr Possanzini the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of damages;

3.	Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Possanzini.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28. 1. 2012, p. 72.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Wurster v EIGE

(Joined Cases F-20/12 and F-43/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Staff of the EIGE - Temporary staff - Procedure to assess the management capabilities of staff of the EIGE recently appointed to a middle management post - Reassignment to a non-management post - Right to be heard - Scope of the law - Finding of the Tribunal of its own motion - Substitution of grounds made by the Tribunal of its own motion)

(2014/C 71/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Barbara Wurster (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented initially by: T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers, and subsequently by: T. Bontinck and S. Greco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Re:

Firstly, application for the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reassign the applicant from the position of Head of Operations to a Team Leader position not requiring managerial skills. Secondly, application to annul the decision of the Director of the EIGE rejecting the applicant’s claim for the management allowance for the period between 1 June and 30 September 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Director of the European Institute for Gender Equality of 8 September 2011 to reassign Ms Wurster to the post of Team Leader of the Research and Documentation Centre;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the European Institute for Gender Equality to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Wurster.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 35; OJ C 200, 7.7.2012, p. 21.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Glantenay and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/204/10 - Selection on the basis of qualifications - Elimination of candidates without specific examination of their degrees and diplomas and professional experience)

(2014/C 71/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jérôme Glantenay and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant: Marco Cecchetto (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicants to the next stage of the competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.

Annuls the decisions of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 to reject the applications of Mssrs Bonagurio, Cecchetto, Gecse, Glantenay, Gorgol, Kalamees and Skrobich and of Ms Venckunaite and Ms Załęska from the competition procedure without examining them in the context of the second stage of the selection based on qualifications laid down in the competition notice;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the actions in Cases F-23/12 and F-30/12;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear nine tenths of its costs and to pay those incurred by Mssrs Bonagurio, Cecchetto, Gecse, Glantenay, Gorgol, Kalamees and Skrobich and by Ms Venckunaite and Ms Załęska;

4.	Orders Ms Cruceru to bear her own costs and to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 C 138, p. 35; OJ 2012 C 138, p. 36.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30.9.2013 BP v FRA

(Case F-38/12) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Member of the contract staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2014/C 71/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff and of the decision to transfer the applicant to another department of the Agency, and a claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Declares that BP shall bear all her own costs and orders her to pay all costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012 p. 37.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Höpcke v Commission

(Case F-46/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AST/111/10 - Non-inclusion in the reserve list - Instruction to draft a text of a minimum length - Failure to comply)

(2014/C 71/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the name of the applicant in the list of successful candidates for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Höpcke to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 25.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7.11.2013

Cortivo v Parliament

(Case F-52/12) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Correction coefficient - Member State of residence - Concept - Principal residence - Residence shared between Member States - Documents in support - Legitimate expectations)

(2014/C 71/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Luisa Cortivo (Sagone, France) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the decision fixing the applicant’s main place of residence in Luxembourg; and, second, of the decision modifying the applicant’s pension entitlements by withdrawing the correction coefficient for France as from 1 January 2010.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the application;

2.	Orders Ms Cortivo to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012 p. 22.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Roulet v Commission

(Joined Cases F-72/12 and F-10/13) (1)

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Article 66 of the Staff Regulations - Former member of the temporary staff at Grade AD12 - Recruitment as an official at Grade AD6 - Payment of remuneration equivalent to that paid to an official at Grade AD12 - Manifest error - Recovery of undue payments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

(2014/C 71/63)

Language of the cases: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of: (i) the decision rejecting a request for compensation made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations by reason of the errors made when establishing her entitlements when she took up her duties and for the delay in rectifying those errors; and (ii) the Commission’s decision relating to the recovery of a certain amount of the remuneration of the applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff at Grade A4 (AD12), and subsequently an official at Grade AD6, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-72/12 and F-10/13;

2.	Orders Ms Roulet to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 29; OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 39.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — CN v Council

(Case F-84/12) (1)

(Civil service - Article 78 of the Statute - Invalidity Committee - Medical report - Medical data of a psychiatric or psychological nature - Confidentiality of medical information - Access - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2014/C 71/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor of that committee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders CN to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.09.2012 p. 35.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Balionyte-Merle v Commission

(Case F-113/12) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/204/10 - Failure to include the applicant on the reserve list - Assessment of candidates’ general competencies - Assessment on the basis of performance in tests at the assessment centre - Consistency between the mark obtained and comments appearing in the competency passport)

(2014/C 71/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vilija Balionyte-Merle (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/204/10 and for annulment of the decision to reject the complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Balionyte-Merle to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013 p. 710.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Arguelles Arias v Council

(Case F-122/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Contract staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Termination - Post held requiring security clearance - Clearance refused by the national security authority - Decision varied by the appeal body - Findings of the national security authority and the appeal body not binding on the AECE)

(2014/C 71/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Arguelles Arias (Awans, Belgium) (represented by: J. Lecuyer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Council dismissing the applicant and for compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Arguelles Arias to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 72.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5.12.2013 Birkhoff v Commission

(Case F-60/09 DEP)

(Civil service - Procedure - Taxation of costs - No need to adjudicate)

(2014/C 71/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Isny, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for taxation of costs in Case F 60/09 DEP, Birkhoff v Commission.

2.	The parties are to bear their own costs incurred in respect of the present taxation of costs proceedings.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 December 2013 — Pachtitis v Commission

(Case F-49/12)

(Civil Service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/77/06 - Access to documents - Request for access to answers to the admission tests - Annulment of the test results - No interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2014/C 71/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented: initially by P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, and subsequently by P. Giatagantzidis and A. Féréti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, and subsequently by J. Currall and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents)

Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

2.	Mr Pachtitis and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.

3.	The Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Data Protection Supervisor, as interveners, shall bear their own respective costs.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-127/12)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)

(2014/C 71/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the late despatch of the bill of lading relating to the transport of his personal effects from Luanda (Angola), to where he had been assigned, to Italy.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-133/12)

(Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter was sent by the institution to the applicant’s lawyer concerning costs the applicant had been ordered to pay - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

(2014/C 71/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the fact that a letter concerning the applicant was sent by the defendant to the applicant’s lawyer, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

2.	Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

3.	Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-145/12)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)

(2014/C 71/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for the revalorisation of his invalidity pension.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	Mr Marcuccio id ordered to bear his own costs.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 —  JJ (*1) v Council

(Case F-47/13) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2012 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Interinstitutional transfer in the course of the promotion procedure preceding that during which a promotion decision would have taken effect - Institution which is competent to take a decision on promotion of the transferred official)

(2014/C 71/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JJ (*1) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials in function group AD proposed for promotion in 2012.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

2.	JJ (*1) shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 63.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Loescher v Council

(Case F-134/12) (1)

(2014/C 71/73)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 74.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Carpenito v Council

(Case F-136/12) (1)

(2014/C 71/74)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 75.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 — Moragrega Arroyo v Council

(Case F-49/13) (1)

(2014/C 71/75)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 20.