25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Deltafina SpA v European Commission

(Case C-578/11 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Immunity from fines Immunity from fines - Obligation to cooperate - Rights of the defence - Limits of judicial review - Right to fair legal process - Hearing of witnesses or of parties - Reasonable time - Principle of equal treatment))

2014/C 282/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Deltafina SpA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — FLS Plast A/S v European Commission

(Case C-243/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court - Obligation to state reasons - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Proportionality - Proceedings before the General Court - Adjudication within a reasonable time))

2014/C 282/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: FLS Plast A/S (represented by: M. Thill-Tayara and Y. Anselin, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the appeal;

2)	Orders FLS Plast A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-377/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Council Decision 2012/272/EU on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of the Philippines - Choice of legal basis - Articles 79 TFEU, 91 TFEU, 100 TFEU, 191 TFEU and 209 TFEU - Readmission of third-country nationals - Transport - Environment - Development cooperation))

2014/C 282/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, G. Valero Jordana and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and A. Carroll, Barrister), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Khala and G. Papagianni, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by A. Robinson, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/272/EU of 14 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, in so far as the Council of the European Union added thereto the legal bases relating to readmission of third-country nationals, transport and the environment;

2)	Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3)	Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Granton Advertising BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

(Case C-461/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13(B)(d)(3) and (5) - ‘Other securities’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Sales promotion scheme - Discount card - Taxable amount))

2014/C 282/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Granton Advertising BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Haaglanden/kantoor Den Haag

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(B)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the sale of a discount card, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute a transaction in ‘other securities’ or concerning ‘other negotiable instruments’, within the meaning, respectively, of paragraphs 5 and 3 of that provision, which refers to certain transactions which the Member States must exempt from value added tax.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12) v Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-501/12 to C-506/12, C-540/12 and C-541/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment ‘in employment and occupation’ - Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) - Direct discrimination on grounds of age - Basic pay for civil servants dependent upon age - Transitional system - Perpetuation of the difference in treatment - Justifications - Right to compensation - Liability of the Member State - Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness))

2014/C 282/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12)

Defendants: Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

1)	Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that pay conditions for civil servants fall within the scope of that directive.

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, within each service grade, the step determining basic pay is to be allocated, at the time of recruitment, on the basis of the civil servant’s age.

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down the detailed rules governing the reclassification within a new remuneration system of civil servants who were established before that legislation entered into force, under which the pay step that they are now allocated is to be determined solely on the basis of the amount received by way of basic pay under the old system, notwithstanding the fact that that amount depended on discrimination based on the civil servant’s age, and advancement to the next step is now to depend exclusively on the experience acquired after that legislation entered into force.

In circumstances such as those of the cases before the referring court, EU law — and, in particular, Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 — does not require civil servants who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade;

It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions, laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law.

EU law does not preclude a national rule, like the rule at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the civil servant to take steps, within relatively narrow time-limits — that is to say, before the end of the financial year then in course — to assert a claim to financial payments that do not arise directly from the law, where that rule does not conflict with the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-507/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7 - ‘Worker’ - Union citizen who gave up work because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth))

2014/C 282/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jessy Saint Prix

Defendants: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Intervening party: AIRE Centre

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a woman who gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth retains the status of ‘worker’, within the meaning of that article, provided she returns to work or finds another job within a reasonable period after the birth of her child.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) v European Commission

(Case C-531/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant contract concerning a local development action - Recovery of part of the sums paid - Assumption of debt - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Limitation period - Liability of the Commission))

2014/C 282/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (represented by: L. Hincker and F. Bleykasten, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and D. Calciu, acting as Agents, and by E. Bouttier, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Joined Cases T-168/10 and T-572/10 Commission v SEMEA and Commune de Millau, in so far as it found, in the assessment of the counterclaim brought by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA), that there is no direct causal link between the conduct of the European Commission and the damage allegedly sustained as a result of the order for payment of default interest;

Upholds in part the counterclaim brought by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) and orders the European Commission to pay three quarters of the amount of default interest at the annual statutory rate applied in France that is due in respect of the period from 27 April 1993 to 18 November 2005;

3)	Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

4)	Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs at first instance and on appeal, to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commune de Millau and by the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) in both sets of proceedings;

5)	Orders the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) to bear three quarters of their own costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet

(Case C-556/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/19/EC - Article 2(a) - Access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities - Articles 5, 8, 12 and 13 - Competence of the national regulatory authorities - Obligation relating to access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities - Undertaking with significant market power on a specific market - Drop cable connecting the distribution frame of the access network to the network termination point at the end-user’s premises - Proportionality of the obligation to meet reasonable requests for access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 8 - Policy objectives for the carrying out of the tasks of the national regulatory authorities))

2014/C 282/09

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TDC A/S

Defendant: Teleklagenævnet

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a), 8 and 12 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), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority has the power to impose on an electronic communications operator that has significant market power on a specific market, pursuant to the obligation to meet reasonable requests for access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities, an obligation to install, at the request of competing operators, a drop cable not exceeding 30 metres in length connecting the distribution frame of an access network to the network termination point at the end-user’s premises, as long as that obligation is based on the nature of the problem identified, proportionate and justified in the light of the objectives set out in Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19, as amended by Directive 2009/140, read in conjunction with Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority, when minded to require an electronic communications operator that has significant market power on a specific market to install drop cables for the purpose of connecting the end-user to a network, has to take into account the initial investment made by the operator concerned and the existence of a price control that makes it possible to recover the costs of installation.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH) v Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda

(Case C-574/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Award of the contract without a procurement procedure (in-house award) - Contractor legally separate from the awarding authority - Centre for hospital assistance and support services - Non-profit association operating in the public interest - Majority of the partners made up of awarding authorities - Minority of the partners made up of entities under private law, non-profit charitable associations - Activity carried out of at least 80 % of the annual turnover for the partners’ benefit))

2014/C 282/10

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal EPE, Serviço de Utilização Comum dos Hospitais (SUCH)

Defendant: Eurest Portugal — Sociedade Europeia de Restaurantes Lda

Operative part of the judgment

Where the contractor under a public contract is a non-profit association which, at the time of the award of the contract, has as partners not only public sector entities but also private social solidarity institutions carrying out non-profit activities, the requirement for ‘similar control’, established by the case-law of the Court in order that the award of a public contract may be regarded as an in-house operation, is not met, so that Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts applies.

(1) OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht- Germany) — Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-11/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Patent law - Plant protection products - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Articles 1 and 3 - Terms ‘product’ and ‘active substances’ - Safener))

2014/C 282/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer CropScience AG

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘product’ in Article 1.8 and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, and the term ‘active substances’ in Article 1.3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that those terms may cover a substance intended to be used as a safener, where that substance has a toxic, phytotoxic or plant protection action of its own.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13)

(Joined Cases C-39/13 to C-41/13) (1)

((Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Single tax entity formed by companies in the same group - Request - Grounds for refusal - Seat of one or more intermediate companies, or of the parent company, located in another Member State - No permanent establishment in the State of taxation))

2014/C 282/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen (C-39/13), X AG, X1 Holding GmbH, X2 Holding GmbH, X3 Holding GmbH, D1 BV, D2 BV, D3 BV (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam (C-41/13)

Respondents: SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13)

Operative part of the judgment

In Cases C-39/13 and C-41/13, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a resident parent company can form a single tax entity with a resident sub-subsidiary where it holds that sub-subsidiary through one or more resident companies, but cannot where it holds that sub-subsidiary through non-resident companies which do not have a permanent establishment in that Member State.

In Case C-40/13, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which treatment as a single tax entity is granted to a resident parent company which holds resident subsidiaries, but is precluded for resident sister companies the common parent company of which neither has its seat in that Member State nor has a permanent establishment there.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Joined Cases C-53/13 and C-80/13) (1)

((Freedom to provide services - Temporary employment agency - Secondment of workers by an agency established in another Member State - Restriction - Undertaking using the workforce - Tax on the income of those workers withheld at source - Obligation - Payment to national budget - Obligation - Situation of workers seconded by a national agency - Absence of such obligations))

2014/C 282/13

Language of the case: Czech

Referring courts

Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13)

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which companies established in one Member State using workers employed and seconded by temporary employment agencies established in another Member State, but operating in the first Member State through a branch, are obliged to withhold tax and to pay to the first Member State an advance payment on the income tax due by those workers, whereas the same obligation is not imposed on companies established in the first Member State which use the services of temporary employment agencies established in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen

(Case C-75/13) (1)

((Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties - Incurrence of a customs debt))

2014/C 282/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SEK Zollagentur GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 50 and 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an article left for temporary storage must be deemed to have been removed from customs supervision if it is declared for an external Community transit procedure, but it does not in fact leave the storage facility and is not presented to the customs office at the place of destination, although the transit documents have been presented there.

The fourth indent of Article 203(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where an article is removed from customs supervision, the person who, as the approved consignor, placed that article in the external Community transit procedure is a customs debtor under that provision.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Gülay Bollacke v K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

(Case C-118/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Paid annual leave - Allowance in lieu in the event of death))

2014/C 282/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gülay Bollacke

Defendant: K + K Klaas & Kock B.V. & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave is lost without conferring entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave outstanding, where the employment relationship is terminated by the death of the worker. Receipt of such an allowance is not to be dependent on a prior application by the interested party.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-156/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Betting and gaming - Federal legislation banning games of chance via the internet which was not applied for a limited period in a federal entity of a Member State - Consistency - Proportionality))

2014/C 282/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Digibet Ltd, Gert Albers

Defendant: Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation common to the majority of the federal entities of a Member State having a federal structure which prohibits, in principle, the organisation and facilitation of games of chance via the internet, where, for a limited period, a single federal entity has maintained in force more liberal legislation coexisting with the restrictive legislation of the other federal entities, provided that such legislation is able to satisfy the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, which is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Oberbank AG (C-217/13), Banco Santander SA (C-218/13), Santander Consumer Bank AG (C-218/13) v Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband eV

(Joined Cases C-217/13 and C-218/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1) and (3) - Mark consisting of a contourless red colour, registered for banking services - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Distinctive character acquired through use - Evidence - Consumer survey - Time when distinctive character through use is acquired - Burden of proof))

2014/C 282/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Oberbank AG (C-217/13), Banco Santander SA (C-218/13), Santander Consumer Bank AG (C-218/13)

Defendant: Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law according to which, in the context of proceedings raising the question whether a contourless colour mark has acquired a distinctive character through use, it is necessary in every case that a consumer survey indicate a degree of recognition of at least 70 %.

Where a Member State has not exercised the power laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, the first sentence of Article 3(3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of invalidity proceedings in respect of a mark which is intrinsically devoid of distinctive character, in order to assess whether that mark has acquired a distinctive character through use, it is necessary to examine whether such character was acquired before the date of filing of the application for registration of that mark. It is irrelevant in that regard that the proprietor of the mark at issue maintains that the mark has, in any event, acquired a distinctive character through use after the date of filing of the application for registration, but before the date of registration of that mark.

Where a Member State does not exercise the power laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, the first sentence of Article 3(3) of that directive must be interpreted to the effect that it does not preclude, in the context of invalidity proceedings, the mark at issue from being declared invalid where it is intrinsically devoid of distinctive character and the proprietor of that mark has failed to show that it has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it before the date of filing of the application for registration.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE

(Case C-314/13) (1)

((Requests for preliminary rulings - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Exceptions - Payment of professional fees associated with legal services - Discretion of the competent national authority - Right to effective judicial protection - Effect of unlawful origin of funds - None))

2014/C 282/18

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba

Defendants: Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of January 2011 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, when taking a decision on whether to grant a derogation requested under that provision with a view to bringing an action challenging the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed by the European Union, the competent national authority does not enjoy an absolute discretion, but must exercise its powers in a manner which upholds the rights provided for in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and observes the indispensable nature of legal representation in bringing such an action before the General Court of the European Union.

The competent national authority may verify that the funds release of which is requested are intended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services. It may also set the conditions it deems appropriate in order to guarantee, inter alia, that the objective of the sanction imposed is not frustrated and the derogation granted is not distorted.

Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 765/2006, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 84/2011 and by Regulation No 588/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, in which a freezing of funds and economic resources is based on that regulation, a derogation from the freezing of funds and economic resources in order to pay for legal services must be appraised in accordance with that provision, which makes no reference to the origin of the funds or possible unlawful acquisition thereof.

(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Burgas — Bulgaria) — Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas

(Case C-330/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Goods described as ‘heavy oils, lubricating oils or other oils for undergoing a specific process’ - Headings 2707 and 2710 - Aromatic and non-aromatic constituents - Relationship between the Combined Nomenclature and the Harmonised System))

2014/C 282/19

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Аdministrativen sad — Burgas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas

Operative part of the judgment

The criterion to take into consideration in order to classify products with characteristics such as those of the product at issue in the main proceedings under Heading 2707 or Heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, is the content by weight of the aromatic constituents in relation to the non-aromatic constituents.

2)	The expression ‘aromatic constituents’ in Chapter 27 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as being wider than ‘aromatic hydrocarbons’.

It is, in principle, for the national courts to establish the most appropriate method to determine the content of aromatic constituents of a specific product in order to classify it under Heading 2707 or Heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011.

Point 1 of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, on subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99 thereof must be interpreted as being non-exhaustive, so that a product falling within Heading 2707 of the Combined Nomenclature which cannot be classified under a specific subheading must be classified under subheading 2707 99 99 thereof.

(1) OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

(Case C-345/13) (1)

((Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 6 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 85(2) - Unregistered Community design - Validity - Conditions - Burden of proof))

2014/C 282/20

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd

Defendants: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produces on the informed user must be different from that produced on such a user not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually.

Article 85(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design is not required to prove that it has individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, but need only indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design, that is to say, indicates what, in his view, are the element or elements of the design concerned which give it its individual character.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-377/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Tribunal Arbitral Tributário - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 4 and 7 - Increase of the share capital of a capital company - Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 - That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced))

2014/C 282/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1)(c) and 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding the reintroduction by a Member State of capital duty on increases of share capital of a company falling under the first of those provisions, which were subject to such duty on 1 July 1984, but which were later exempted from that duty.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2014 — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH v Bundesvergabeamt

(Case C-166/14)

2014/C 282/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

Defendant: Bundesvergabeamt

Other parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft; Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

Question referred

Is EU law — in particular the general principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — to be interpreted as precluding a national legal situation in which an application for a declaration of an infringement of public procurement law must be made within six months of the conclusion of the contract, if the declaration of an infringement of public procurement law is a precondition not only of annulling the contract but also of bringing a claim for damages?

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

(2) OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/17

Appeal brought on 7 May 2014 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-226/12: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-224/14 P)

2014/C 282/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz, A. K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Judgement of the General Court of 27 February 2014 (Case T-226/12);

—	in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1) as sought in the proceedings before the General Court;

—	order the OHIM as defendant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the Application for Appeal, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG raises three pleas in law against the contested judgement:

1)	infringement of Art. 42 (2) and (3) CTMR (1) (2) and Rule 22 (3) and (4) of CTMIR (3) (4) in conjunction with Art. 15 (1) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for proof of genuine use of the opposition mark within the meaning of these provisions;

2)	infringement of Art. 15 (1) (a) CTMR in conjunction with Art. 42 (2) and (3) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for considering the use of the opposition mark in a different form than the registered to constitute genuine use within the meaning of Art. 15 (1) CTMR;

3)	infringement of Art. 8 (1) (b) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The main arguments can be summarized as follows:

Regarding plea (1), the General Court erred in law in finding that the Board of Appeal correctly considered three undated photographs together with some invoices as solid and objective evidence, sufficient for proving genuine use of the opposition mark, particularly with regard to the nature of use.

Regarding plea (2), the General Court disregarded the exceptional character of Art. 15 (1) (a) CTMR that requires, for reasons of legal certainty and predictability, strict and narrow interpretation, an assessment of all elements of the mark in its registered form. The General Court thus erred in law when confirming the Board of Appeal’s finding that the used form of the mark had constituted genuine use as it did not alter the distinctive character of the opposition mark in its registered form as the Board of Appeal did not take into consideration all elements of the opposition mark.

Regarding plea (3), the General Court misinterpreted Art. 8 (1) (b) CTMR as, in its assessment of the Board of Appeal’s findings on the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion, it did not take adequately into consideration that, firstly, in the case at hand the degree of attention of the relevant public is quite high, secondly, the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not tend to analyse its various details and, thirdly, it is only if all other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity of signs can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. If these aspects had been taken into consideration correctly, a likelihood of confusion could not have been found.

As the contested judgement is, thus, not in accordance with the provisions of the CTMR, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG requests its annulment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

(2) OJ L 78, p. 1

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

(4) OJ L 303, p. 1

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/18

Appeal brought on 13 May 2014 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-225/12: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-237/14 P)

2014/C 282/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz, A. K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Judgement of the General Court of 27 February 2014 (Case T-225/12);

—	in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 21 March 2012 (R 2379/2010-1) as sought in the proceedings before the General Court;

—	order the OHIM as defendant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the Application for Appeal, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG raises three pleas in law against the contested judgement:

1)	infringement of Art. 42 (2) and (3) CTMR (1) and Rule 22 (3) and (4) of CTMIR (2) in conjunction with Art. 15 (1) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for proof of genuine use of the opposition mark within the meaning of these provisions;

2)	infringement of Art. 15 (1) (a) CTMR in conjunction with Art. 42 (2) and (3) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for considering the use of the opposition mark in a different form than the registered to constitute genuine use within the meaning of Art. 15 (1) CTMR;

3)	infringement of Art. 8 (1) (b) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The main arguments can be summarized as follows:

As the contested judgement is, thus, not in accordance with the provisions of the CTMR, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG requests its annulment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 303, p. 1

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

(Case C-266/14)

2014/C 282/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional — Sala de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.)

Defendant: Tyco Integrated Security, S.L. and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios, S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the time spent travelling at the beginning and end of the day by a worker who is not assigned to a fixed place of work but is required to travel every day from home to the premises of a different customer of the employer and to return home from the premises of another, different, customer (following a route or list that is determined for the worker by the employer the previous day), at all times within a geographical area that is more or less extensive, in the conditions of the main proceedings as described in the background to this question, constitutes ‘working time’ as that concept is defined in Article 2 of the directive or, conversely, must it be regarded as a ‘rest period’?

(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time

(OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/20

Appeal brought on 30 May 2014 by Buzzi Unicem SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-297/11, Buzzi Unicem SpA v European Commission

(Case C-267/14 P)

2014/C 282/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Buzzi Unicem SpA (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro and A. Sodano, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal and, consequently:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety for failure to state reasons, or to state adequate reasons, and for the consequent infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence and the principle of due process;

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety for excess and abuse of powers and for the consequent reversal of the burden of proof;

—

annul the contested decision, in whole or in part, as being ultra vires with respect to the powers conferred on the Commission under Article 18 [of Regulation No 1/2003]; and for breach of the principles of proportionality and due process, and failure to hear argument on an inter partes basis, in breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’;

—	set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as Buzzi Unicem is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings in addition to those relating to Case T-297/11.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal, alleging error of law; failure to state grounds or to state adequate grounds; infringement of the rights of the defence; and breach of the principle of due process

By its first ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by error of law, and failure to state grounds or to state adequate grounds, in so far as it finds that the generic reference, in the decision opening infringement proceedings, to presumed infringements is adequate reason for a request for information under Article 18(3), incorporating the ‘minimum degree of clarity’ required by the provision as regards the subject-matter and purpose of the request.

Second ground of appeal, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law in relation to the plea that the Commission exceeded and abused its powers, and the consequent reversal of the burden of proof

By its second ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment and of law by rejecting the complaint relating to the abuse of powers by the Commission in requesting information under Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) despite the lack of any evidence of an infringement, in so far as the General Court held that Buzzi Unicem did not make an express and reasoned application enabling the question whether there was sufficient evidence to be determined and in so far as, without stating any grounds, the General Court rejected the complaint concerning the reversal of the burden of proof.

Third ground of appeal, alleging error of fact and of law, and an illogical statement of grounds, in relation to the plea that the Commission had exceeded its powers under Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003

By its third ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem alleges misapplication of the principles relating to the duties of cooperation incumbent upon undertakings, in so far as the General Court held that the Commission had correctly required the undertakings to respond not merely to factual questions but with information that the Commission knew was not available to the undertaking and with additional information that the Commission could have obtained independently.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging error of law and failure to state adequate grounds in relation to the complaints alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and excess of powers in respect of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003

By its fourth ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state grounds or to state adequate grounds, and by error of law, in relation to the breach of the principle of proportionality and the ensuing excessive burden on the parties resulting from the requests for information, from the reiteration and reformulation of those requests, from the proposal of new variables and the putting of new questions, from the refusal to limit the information to be furnished, from the choice also to request, by decision, information which had already been provided earlier.

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging error of law and failure to state grounds in relation to the breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ and in relation to the breach of the principle of due process

By its fifth ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ were not binding on the Commission where, having decided to ask undertakings to comment on a draft decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission thereafter did not take any account of the comments received and significantly amended the text of the final decision. Buzzi Unicem also contests the failure to state grounds in relation to the breach of the principle of due process on the part of the Commission through the way in which it had exercised the power to request information.

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/21

Appeal brought on 30 May 2014 by Italmobiliare SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-305/11 Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission

(Case C-268/14 P)

2014/C 282/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italmobiliare SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Set aside the judgment in its entirety, with all the consequences that entails, including annulment of the contested decision;

—	In so far as they may be considered appropriate and necessary, order the measures of organisation of procedure and/or the measures of inquiry referred to in Articles 62 and 64, respectively, of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred before the General Court; and

—	In the alternative, where the above is not possible, refer the case back to the General Court for the implementation of any measures of inquiry or organisation of procedure not already arranged by the Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in its identification of the addressee of the contested decision

By its first ground, Italmobiliare challenges the argument endorsed by the General Court that Italmobiliare might reasonably be assumed to have access to the information sought. It also argues that the General Court seriously distorted the facts and erred in its application of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by not considering that the Commission’s earlier conduct and written assurances were likely to give rise to the legitimate expectation that Italmobiliare would not be concerned by the contested decision. Lastly, it is submitted that the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons with regard to Italmobiliare’s plea alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination because it does not examine the argument put forward by Italmobiliare to demonstrate that it is the only financial holding company to be involved in the procedure as an addressee of the request for information under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. (1)

Second ground of appeal: the General Court’s reasoning when examining the plea alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU is contradictory and illogical

By its second ground, Italmobiliare argues that the reasoning used by the General Court is contradictory and illogical inasmuch as, while recognising that the Commission’s statement of reasons is inadequate as regards the object and purpose of the request, that Court considers it to be comprehensive if read in the context of the reasoning set out in the opening decision, even though that decision does not add anything in terms of substance to the content of the contested decision. Italmobiliare also submits that the statement of reasons in the contested decision, subsequently reproduced in the judgment under appeal, is incomplete as regards the necessity of the information sought and the choice of using as an instrument the decision referred to in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in its application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 18(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 by failing to recognise that the contested decision is ultra vires

By its third ground, Italmobiliare contests the analysis carried out by the General Court in relation to the claim that the Commission lacked the power to adopt the contested decision. It argues that the General Court essentially failed to take into consideration the evidence provided by Italmobiliare in support of its claim, and did not adopt any measures of organisation of procedure in order to investigate the evidence which, according to the Commission, justified the request for information.

Fourth ground of appeal: the statement of reasons relating to the examination of the plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality is inadequate, contradictory and illogical

By its fourth ground, Italmobiliare submits that inadequate and/or contradictory reasoning was used in the following areas relating to the Commission’s alleged breach of the principle of proportionality: (i) the unsuitability of the request for information as a means of pursuing the objective set in the present case; (ii) the excessive cost of the efforts that the company is required to make in preparing a response to the request for information; and (iii) the breach of the ‘more moderate means’ criterion, which requires the objectives of an investigation always to be pursued through the adoption of measures which involve only minor sacrifices on the part of the addressees as regards their legal rights.

Fifth ground of appeal: the statement of reasons relating to the alleged infringement of the right to be heard is inadequate

By its fifth ground, Italmobiliare submits that the statement of reasons provided in the judgment under appeal in relation to the alleged infringement of the right to be heard is inadequate. It argues that the General Court was wrong to hold that the ‘way’ in which the Commission conducts a consultation may escape judicial review solely on the ground that the Commission was under ‘no obligation’ to proceed in that manner.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 June 2014 — LFB Biomédicaments, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi et de la santé, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État

(Case C-271/14)

2014/C 282/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LFB Biomédicaments, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France)

Defendants: Ministre du travail, de l’emploi et de la santé, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État

Question referred

Does Article 6(5) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) require that a statement of reasons be given for a decision to remove a proprietary medicinal product from the list of medicinal products provided to inpatients in health establishments which may be covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to services relating to hospital treatment covered in the context of fixed payments in respect of periods of hospitalisation and hospital care determined in accordance with diagnosis-related groups?

(1) OJ L 40, p. 8.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 April 2014 — Pierre Fabre Médicament v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-273/14)

2014/C 282/29

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pierre Fabre Médicament

Defendants: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

Question referred

Do points 3 and 5 of Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) apply to decisions removing a proprietary product from the list of medicinal products administered to inpatients in health establishments that may be covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to hospital treatments covered in the context of fixed payments for stays and care determined by diagnosis related group?

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) (Greece) lodged on 13 June 2014 — The Greek State v Stefanos Stroumboulis and Others

(Case C-292/14)

2014/C 282/30

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Greek State

Defendants: Stefanos Stroumpoulis, Nicolaos Koumpanos, Panagiotis Renieris, Charalampos Renieris, Ioannis Zacharias, Dimitrios Lazarou and Apostolos Chatzisotiriou

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that seamen of a Member State who provided maritime labour on a vessel flying the flag of a country which is not a member of the European Union, as regards their outstanding claims against the ship-owning company — which had its registered office in the territory of the non-member country though its real seat was in the Member State concerned, and which was declared insolvent by a court of that Member State according to the law of that Member State, for the precise reason that that was where its real seat was — were subject to the protective provisions of the above Directive, in view of the purpose of the Directive and irrespective of the fact that the relevant employment contracts were governed by the law of the non-member country and that the Member State is unable to claim a contribution from the ship-owning company, which is not subject to the domestic legal order, towards the financing of the guarantee institution?

Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that ‘equivalent protection’ includes payment, pursuant to Article 29 of Law 1220/1981, by the Seamen’s Insurance Fund (NAT) of wages for up to three months, according to the rate of basic pay and benefits set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreements for Greek seamen employed as such on board vessels flying the Greek flag or foreign vessels which have entered into an agreement with NAT, in the circumstances referred to in that article, i.e. only if they are abandoned in a foreign country?

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 35).

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/25

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)

(Case T-137/09 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark R 10 - Unregistered earlier national word mark R 10 - Assignment of the national trade mark - Proof of ownership of the earlier trade mark))

2014/C 282/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Petrer, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Nike International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

(1) OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/25

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-16/11) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch - Rights of the defence))

2014/C 282/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree, M. Noort, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, F. Wilman and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008 in the total amount of EUR 2 8 9 47 149.31.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/26

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Kimman v Commission

(Case T-644/11 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reports - Appraisal report - 2009 appraisal exercise - Rule that the application corresponds to the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations - Opinion of the ad-hoc committee - Distortion - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

2014/C 282/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Eugène Emile Marie Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission, not yet published, seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission (F-74/10), first, in that it declares admissible the second plea in law, the six first parts of the third plea in law and the fourth plea in law, except the claim that the work done by the applicant in the interest of the institution had not been taken into account, raised by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance and, second, in that it orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the appellant’s costs related to those proceedings;

2.	Dismisses the main appeal;

3.	Rejects the action brought by Mr Eugène Emile Marie Kimman before the Civil Service Tribunal;

4.	Orders Mr Kimman to bear the entirety of the costs both at first instance and of the main appeal;

5.	Orders each party to bear its own costs in the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/27

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

(Case T-184/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HEATSTRIP - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 282/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach b. München, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 1956/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd and Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd.

(1) OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/27

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Alchaar v Council

(Case T-203/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Links with the regime - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy))

2014/C 282/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohamad Nedal Alchaar (Aleppo, Syria) (represented by: A. Korkmaz, D. Amaudruz and A. Boesch, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Cujo and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 8) and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as those acts contain restrictive measures concerning the applicant, as well as of all future acts amending that decision or regulation and, secondly, of the Council’s communication of 16 March 2012 informing the applicant that his name was being maintained on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Mohamad Nedal Alchaar;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Alchaar;

4.	Orders Mr Alchaar to bear one third of his own costs;

5.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/28

Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)

(Case T-239/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZIECON - Earlier Community word mark CERCON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 282/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (Nashik, India) (represented by: R. Egerer, D. Jochim and A. Kolb, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, T. Hertl and P. Winkler, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2012 (Case R 2546/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and DeguDent GmbH.

(1) OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/29

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-Joined Cases T-319/12 and T-321/12) (1)

((State aid - Cinematography - Aid for the construction and operation of a film studio complex - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Criterion of private market economy investor - State aid for regional purposes - Aid to promote culture - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 282/37

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogade del Estado); Cuidad de la Luz, SAU (Alicante, Spain); and Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SAU (Alicante) (represented initially by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, J. Belenguer Mula and M. Muñoz de Juan, and subsequently by: J. Buendía Sierra and J. Belenguer Mula, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3025 final of 8 May 2012 concerning State aid SA.22668 (C 8/2008 (NN 4/2008)), which Spain implemented in favour of Ciudad de la Luz, SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions;

2.	Orders La Ciudad de la Lux, SA, Sociedad Proyectos Temáticos de la Comunidad Valenciana, SA and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/29

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

(Cases T-329/12 and T-74/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union - Rights of defence - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))

2014/C 282/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action for annulment of Council acts containing restrictive measures concerning the applicant, namely, initially, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Mr Mazen Al-Tabbaa.

Annuls Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012, in so far as they concern Mr Al-Tabbaa.

3)	Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 and Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739, in so far as they concern Mr Al-Tabbaa.

4)	Annuls Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns Mr Al-Tabbaa.

5)	Orders the effects of Decision 2013/255 to be maintained as regards Mr Al-Tabbaa until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulation No 363/2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 takes effect.

6)	Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-74/13.

7)	Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant in Case T-329/12 and three-quarters of the costs incurred by him in Case T-74/13.

8)	Orders the applicant to pay one quarter of his costs in Case T-74/13.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/30

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar)

(Case T-520/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark gifflar - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 282/39

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Pågen Trademark AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Leffler and P. Geroulakos, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2012 (Case R 46/2012-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark gifflar as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Pågen Trademark AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/31

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council

(Case T-565/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))

2014/C 282/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors, M. Lester, Barrister, and D. Wyatt QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as the applicant was listed in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed National Iranian Tanker Company in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed National Iranian Tanker Company in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

Orders the effects of Decision 2012/635 and Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 to be maintained as regards National Iranian Tanker Company until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

4)	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of National Iranian Tanker Company.

(1) OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/32

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Montres Tudor (GLAMOUR)

(Case T-1/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GLAMOUR - Earlier international mark TUDOR GLAMOUR - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 282/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Raab, H. Lauf and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Montres Tudor SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: J.P. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa and C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2012 (Case R 213/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Montres Tudor SA and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/32

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-20/13) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions and invalidity allowance - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Composition - Appointment of doctors - Failure on the part of the official concerned to appoint the second doctor - The second doctor appointed by the President of the Court of Justice - Appointment of a third doctor by common accord between the first and second doctors appointed - Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - Action at first instance dismissed after referral back by the General Court))

2014/C 282/42

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Frist Chamber) of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/33

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Zanjani v Council

(Case T-155/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Adjustment of the temporal effects of annulment))

2014/C 282/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Babak Zanjani (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), in that the applicant was listed in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), in that the applicant was listed in Annex IX to 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) and, secondly, a declaration of the inapplicability of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 in so far as Article 19(1)(b) and (c) of Decision 2010/413 is applied to him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Mr Babak Zanjani in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Mr Babak Zanjani in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 to be maintained as regards Mr Babak Zanjani until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

4)	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5)	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Babak Zanjani.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/34

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers v Council

(Case T-157/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Period allowed for adaptation of forms of order - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment))

2014/C 282/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd (Kish Island, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex IX to 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) and (ii) Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10), in so far as it maintained the applicant’s listing in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3), in so far as it maintained the applicant’s listing in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

3)	Annuls Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413, in so far as it maintained the listing of Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex II to Decision 2010/413;

4)	Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as it maintained the listing of Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012;

Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2013/270, and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 522/2013, to be maintained as regards Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

6)	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/35

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Sharif University of Technology v Council

(Case T-181/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))

2014/C 282/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

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

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sharif University of Technology in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sharif University of Technology in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

3)	Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 to be maintained, as regards Sharif University of Technology, for a period of two months from the date of delivery of this judgment;

4)	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Sharif University of Technology.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/36

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones v OHIM — Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales (CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL)

(Case T-345/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL - Earlier Spanish figurative mark Cpi construcción promociones e instalaciones, s.a. and earlier trade name Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, S.A.-C.P.I. - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1) (b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark - No evidence of use of the earlier trade name in the course of trade))

2014/C 282/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2013 (Case R 1935/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA, and Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/36

Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+)

(Case T-480/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YouView+ - Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’ - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

2014/C 282/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: You-View.tv (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

2)	Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim.

3)	Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 334, 23.11.2013.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/37

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)

(Case T-242/14)

2014/C 282/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 836/2013-1;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68 762

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/38

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)

(Case T-243/14)

2014/C 282/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 837/2013-1;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68 861

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/38

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star)

(Case T-244/14)

2014/C 282/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 838/2013-1;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face in the form of a star for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68 937

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/39

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-382/14)

2014/C 282/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Conde Sur Vire, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2014 given in Case R 609/2011-4;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PROTICURD’ for goods in Classes 5 and 29 — International Registration No 9 81 041 designating the European Union

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trademarks Nos 3 9 7 02 429, 3 9 5 49 559 and 3 9 6 08 644

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal in part

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

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/39

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-411/14)

2014/C 282/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 given in Case R 540/2013-2;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark representing a shape of a bottle for goods in Classes 6, 21, 32 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 32 687

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration in respect of a part of the goods applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR .

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/40

Action brought on 25 May 2014 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-418/14)

2014/C 282/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul Council’s decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ C 77, p. 1), which states that Council decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 continue to affect directly the applicant;

—	Annul annex IX Point I.B.8 to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as it continues to affect directly the applicant as stated in the Notice of 15 March 2014;

—	Order the Council to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Council decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons and to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Bank is not linked to the interest of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the state’s so called strategic interests nor its nuclear program. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged acts are not met in respect of the Bank and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The Council also failed to apply the correct test.

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

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

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/41

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

(Case T-419/14)

2014/C 282/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (New York, United States of America) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables, in so far as they concern the applicant; and/or

—	Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the Decision;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of 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 (1) in holding GS Group jointly and severally liable for the infringement allegedly committed by Prysmian.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU in that it fails to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that GS Group actually exercised decisive influence over Prysmian over the relevant period.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as it violates the principle of personal liability and the presumption of innocence.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 as it violates the principles of legal certainty and that the penalty must be specific to the offender, in that the Commission did not allocate the fine.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that the Commission failed to give access to essential documents in due time.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court afford GS Group the benefit of any reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision which may be granted to Prysmian.

(1) OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, p. 1

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/42

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)

(Case T-431/14)

2014/C 282/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2014 in Case R 2019/2013-1;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CHOICE’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69 163

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/42

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-434/14)

2014/C 282/56

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and P. Radošovský, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—

Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and

—	order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs in full.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence

—	The applicant claims in support of the action, inter alia, that he was included on the list in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP before the investigation into his alleged criminal activity in Ukraine was opened.

—

The applicant goes on to state that there was an infringement of the right to a fair trial because there was a breach of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. Further, the applicant submits that the Council did not inform the applicant of his inclusion on the list and of the grounds for the restrictive measures taken against the applicant, nor did it permit the applicant to become acquainted with those facts within a reasonable time after the introduction of those measures. The applicant submits that he could not comment effectively on the contested decision or exercise his right of defence in the time immediately after its adoption.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its powers

—

The applicant objects to formal defects in the Council’s contested measure. In the applicant’s opinion, the reason formulated in terms of the criminal law in the part of the measures containing the statement of reasons is entirely inadequate and evidently does not include genuine policy reasons, or reasons concerning the alleged infringement of human rights, which are stated only in general terms in the preamble. The applicant further submits that the Council exceeded its power because the officially communicated reasons for the measures do not fall within the framework within which the Council is entitled to adopt measures.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property

—	The applicant claims in that regard that the sanction is disproportionate and amounts to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the right to property.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the integrity of the person and to respect for private and family life, and breach of the principle of non-discrimination

—	Here the applicant claims that the measure adopted is an act that is detrimental to the right to the integrity of the person, affecting the applicant’s family and private sphere.

—

According to the applicant, he has suffered damage to his good reputation and a loss of dignity owing to the fact that he was de facto accused by the Council, in the contested decision and in the implementing decision, of transferring Ukrainian State funds abroad and of human rights infringements, although not one of these offences has ever been proved against the applicant and, at the time when he was included on the list, the applicant was not even under investigation for the commission of such offences.

—	In addition the applicant claims that the Council’s measure is discriminatory because he was included on the list without any real reason, and, vice versa, the list does not include persons who should be included on it because of their activities against the interests of Ukraine.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/43

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-437/14)

2014/C 282/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Wakefield, Barrister, and M. Holt, agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul nine entries (namely the eighth, ninth and tenth entries on p. 51; and the first to sixth entries on p. 52) from the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision of 4 April 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C (2014) 2008) (OJ L 104, p. 43);

—	Order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, all of which relate to the Commission’s interpretation of Statutory Management Requirement 8 (‘SMR 8’) in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 (3).

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error in its interpretation of SMR 8. The three principal arguments in support of that plea are that:

—	the legislative decision to exclude Articles 6, 7 and 8 from SMR 8 must be given effect;

—	the inclusion of Articles 4 and 5 in SMR 8 indicates that Article 3 is insufficient to establish any of its ‘elements’ as cross-compliance obligations; and

—	there is a purposive logic to the EU legislature’s decision to treat Articles 4 and 5 differently from Articles 6, 7 and 8.

Second plea in law, alleging that, in its interpretation of SMR 8, the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, which applies with particular force where a measure leads to financial consequences and/or the imposition of a penalty, requires that any uncertainty be resolved in favour of the farmer.

Third plea in law, alleging that, in its interpretation of SMR 8, the Commission has acted in breach of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, which require that a farmer who has failed to comply with an article of Regulation 21/2004 which is not listed in SMR 8 should not be treated in the same way as a farmer who has failed to comply with an article of Regulation 21/2004 which is listed in SMR 8.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, p. 1)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 30, p. 16)

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC (OJ L 5, p. 8)

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/44

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

(Case T-438/14)

2014/C 282/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Silec Cable (Montereau Fault Yonne, France); and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Set aside Article 1 of the Commission Decision C (2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case COMP/AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) as it pertains to Silec Cable and General Cable;

—	In the alternative, amend Article 2 of the Decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Silec Cable and General Cable in light of the arguments put forward in support of the application;

—	Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law and did not satisfy its burden of proof under Article 2 of Council Regulation No 1/2003.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law and infringed the principles of burden of proof and presumption of innocence in asserting that Silec Cable was under a positive obligation to publicly distance itself from the alleged cartel.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment in concluding that Silec Cable directly participated in the alleged cartel as of 30 November 2005.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment in treating Silec Cable differently and inconsistently with the way it treated other recipients of the Decision.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that, at a minimum, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment and proportionality in not characterizing Silec Cable as a fringe player.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/45

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — LS Cable & System v Commission

(Case T-439/14)

2014/C 282/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LS Cable & System Ltd (Anyang, Republic of Korea) (represented by: S. Kinsella and S. Spinks, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul Articles 1(11) and 2(t) of the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;

—	In the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2(t) of the Decision;

—	Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that, the Decision fails to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating to the requisite legal standard that the applicant participated in the single continuous infringement, as the Decision relies on incorrect reasoning and adduces insufficient evidence of the applicant’s participation in the infringement in violation of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s application of point 18 of the Fining Guidelines violates the Fining Guidelines and infringes the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations because:

—	it fails to comply with the Commission’s Fining Guidelines without objective justification, by treating UG and SM power cables separately for the purpose of allocating sales in the EEA to the applicant and by failing to adequately reflect the relative weight of the applicant in the infringement;

—	it produces a discriminatory advantage on producers (including the applicant) that only produced UG power cables; and

—	it leads to a disproportionately large allocation of sales in the EEA to the applicant.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003, point 20 of the Fining Guidelines and the principle of proportionality by failing properly to have regard to the gravity of the infringement in fixing the applicant’s amount of the fine by failing to take account of:

—	the fact that the applicant only produced UG power cables;

—	the applicant’s lack of knowledge about the SM part and certain key elements of the UG part of the infringement; and

—	the applicant’s competitive conduct in the EEA and in the export territories and its disruption of the UG part of the cartel.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in failing to grant the applicant a mitigating circumstance reduction higher than 11 %.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/46

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission

(Case T-446/14)

2014/C 282/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd (Anyang-Si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;

—	In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant, and;

—	Order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission could not assert jurisdiction over the applicant’s conduct failed to demonstrate that the applicant participated in an infringement that it can sanction under Article 101 of the TFEU, since the object of its alleged anti-competitive behavior did not concern the EEA market and its alleged involvement in the anti-competitive behavior could not have and did not have any effect on trade in the EEA market.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously relied on evidence obtained at the inspections held at certain companies, in view of the illegality of the inspection decisions.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined the duration of the alleged infringement with respect to the applicant, thereby violating inter alia the principles of in dubio pro reo and non-discrimination and failing to produce the relevant evidence.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the different approach taken by the Commission with respect to the applicant and other companies for which similar evidence was available in the file violates the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality vis-à-vis the applicant.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s determination of the fine to be imposed on the applicant violated the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality as laid down inter alia in Article 5 TEU, as well as Article 49 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Article 23(3) of 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, the Guidelines (including point 18 and point 37 thereof) and the principle of legitimate expectations.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/47

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — nkt cables and NKT Holding v Commission

(Case T-447/14)

2014/C 282/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: nkt cables GmbH (Köln, Germany) and NKT Holding A/S (Brøndby, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kofmann and B. Creve, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);

—	In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the fine imposed on them;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs;

—	Take any other measures that it considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the applicants' rights of defence and the general principle of equality of arms, by refusing to allow them to access potentially exculpatory evidence received by the Commission after the notification of its Statement of Objections.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that Commission wrongly defined the territorial scope of the single and continuous infringement and erroneously applied the effects criterion.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision contained manifest errors of assessment in relation to the conduct in which NKT Cables was found to have been involved, and in relation to the conclusion that such conduct proved NKT Cables' participation in or awareness of all activities constituting the single and continuous infringement.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its findings as to the duration of NKT Cables' participation in the single and continuous infringement.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the level of the fine which was imposed on the Applicants was unjustifiably and disproportionately high.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/48

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Hitachi Metals v Commission

(Case T-448/14)

2014/C 282/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hitachi Metals Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: P. Crowther and C. Drew, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);

—	In the alternative, partially annul the Decision and substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on J-Power Systems and the applicant; and

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled because the Commission has failed to prove a single complex continuous infringement involving an agreement between Asian and European producers to stay out of each other’s home territories and an agreement to allocate among European companies projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed errors in fact and in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU, in so far as the Decision fails to prove to the required legal standard the involvement of J-Power Systems Corporation over the entire duration of the infringement.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed errors of law and assessment in calculating the fine imposed on J-Power Systems Corporation, as such fine does not reflect the gravity of the infringement and J-Power Systems Corporation’s substantially limited role for a significant duration thereof.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled in its entirety to the extent that it relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans. Such evidence is essential to the Commission’s findings and in particular to the establishment of a single and continuous nature of the infringement as well as to the establishment of an allocation between European companies of projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/49

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case T-449/14)

2014/C 282/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nexans France (Clichy, France); and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);

—	Annul part of the contested decision in so far as it found that Nexans France participated in an infringement before 22 February 2001;

—	Reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants by an amount that corresponds to a shorter duration and a reduced gravity factor; and

—	Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that in removing certain data in the course of the unannounced inspection at the premises of Nexans France, the Commission acted beyond the powers conferred on it by Regulation 1/2003 and breached the applicants’ right to privacy.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in determining the duration of the infringement.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it failed to take account of the alleged infringement’s lack of implementation and lack of effects on customers, failed to give adequate reasons and breached the principle of equal treatment.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/49

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — CHEMK and KF v Commission

(Case T-487/14)

2014/C 282/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

Annul Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2014 of 9 April 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China and Russia (the Contested Regulation), following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (the Basic Regulation), (OJ L 107, p. 13);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an error in law, resulting from an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation and/or a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of a constructed export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation, and in the consequential finding that a full deduction for all SG&A costs and profit of RFA International from the constructed export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted. To the extent that the Commission may have relied in the above findings on the rejection of the applicants’ claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicants contend that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic Regulation and a related breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the applicants’ constructed export price. The breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation results from the Commission’s application of a new methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last interim review investigation which led to the duty in force against the applicants.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s findings on an alleged likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping in relation to Russian imports is flawed by series of manifest errors of assessment of facts and evidence.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, p. 51)

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/50

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Mdr Inversiones v Commission

(Case T-488/14)

2014/C 282/65

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mdr Inversiones, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Linares Gil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

—	in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

—	in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

The applicant alleges, in particular, that the Commission erred in characterising as State aid the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as a whole, as well as the individual measures; that it erred in its identification of the beneficiary of the measures; and that it acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/51

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Espacio Activos Financieros v Commission

(Case T-489/14)

2014/C 282/66

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Espacio Activos Financieros, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. De Zunzunegui Ruano, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

—	in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

—	in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/51

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Bodegas Muga v Commission

(Case T-491/14)

2014/C 282/67

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

—	in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

—	in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

—	in any event, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/52

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — La Perla v OHIM — Alva Management (LA PERLA)

(Case T-492/14)

2014/C 282/68

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: La Perla sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2014 given in Case R 626/2013-4;

—	Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to pay 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 ‘LA PERLA’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 54 225

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 ‘PERLAMAR’ registered as Community and national trade mark

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

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

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/53

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Derivados del Flúor v Commission

(Case T-500/14)

2014/C 282/69

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Derivados del Flúor, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests Commission Decision C (2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (State Aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006))

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission and Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

The applicant alleges, in particular: incorrect application in the present case of Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU; inexistence of a competitive tax advantage; incorrect identification of the beneficiary of the State aid; compatibility of the State aid with the interior market; misuse of powers by the Commission; and breach of the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/53

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones v Commission

(Case T-501/14)

2014/C 282/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/54

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Torrevisa v Commission

(Case T-502/14)

2014/C 282/71

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Torrevisa, SA (Torrevieja, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/54

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Euroways v Commission

(Case T-503/14)

2014/C 282/72

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Euroways, SL (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/55

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Sertrans Catalunya v Commission

(Case T-504/14)

2014/C 282/73

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sertrans Catalunya, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

25.8.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/55

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

(Case T-506/14)

2014/C 282/74

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Grandi Navi Veloci SpA (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: S. Grassani, S. Ravenna and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 to the extent that the Commission found that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 relating to the aid measures implemented by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia in favour of Saremar (Cases SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C)). By that decision the Commission found, inter alia, that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

By its first plea, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is flawed in relation to the finding that Saremer gained no economic advantage in respect of the funds paid by the Region of Sardinia for the supposed promotional activities. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it found that the price paid by the Region of Sardinia as consideration for the promotional activities entrusted to Saremar, amounting to EUR 3 0 00 000, reflected market value and held that no economic advantage accrued to the recipient.

By its second plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits, first, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the method employed by the expert commissioned by the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) was inadequate and, second, that the Commission acted improperly by failing to carry out investigations and acting in breach of the principle of sound administration.

3.	By its third plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is contradictory and does not state adequate reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU in relation to the finding that the measure relating to the supposed promotional activities does not constitute State aid.

By its fourth plea, Grandi Navi Veloci alleges, first, infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the finding that the banking facilities and comfort letters do not constitute State aid and, second, the related breach of the obligation to state reasons for the decision for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 282

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 57 25 August 2014

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2014/C 282/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1