1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-658/11) (1)

((Action for annulment - Decision 2011/640/CFSP - Legal basis - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Article 37 TEU - International agreement relating exclusively to the CFSP - Second subparagraph of Article 218(6) TFEU - Obligation to inform the Parliament immediately and fully - Article 218(10) TFEU - Maintenance of effects))

2014/C 292/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, R. Troosters and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, G. Étienne, M. Bishop and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues, N. Rouam and E. Belliard, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, and by D. Beard QC and G. Facenna, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer;

2)	Orders that the effects of Decision 2011/640 be maintained in force;

3)	Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

4)	Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld

(Case C-350/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(1)(a), second indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(6) - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service concerning the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Protection of legal advice - Decision partially refusing access))

2014/C 292/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Berman, B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sophie in ’t Veld (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Blockx, advocaten), European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of Sophie in ’t Veld: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the appeal;

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

3)	Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping — Sweden) — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten

(Case C-573/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - National support scheme providing for the award of tradable green certificates for installations producing electricity from renewable energy sources - Obligation for electricity suppliers and certain users to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain number of green certificates - Refusal to award green certificates for electricity production installations located outside the Member State in question - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 2, second paragraph, point (k), and Article 3(3) - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU))

2014/C 292/04

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ålands Vindkraft AB

Defendant: Energimyndigheten

Operative part of the judgment

Point (k) of the second paragraph of Article 2 and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to establish a support scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the award of tradable certificates to producers of green electricity solely in respect of green electricity produced in the territory of that State and which places suppliers and certain electricity users under an obligation to deliver annually to the competent authority a certain number of those certificates, corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of electricity that they have supplied or consumed.

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the award of tradable certificates to green electricity producers solely in respect of green electricity produced in the territory of the Member State concerned and which places suppliers and certain electricity users under an obligation to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain number of those certificates, corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of electricity that they have supplied or used, failing which they must pay a specific fee.

It is for the national court to determine, taking into account all relevant factors — which may include the EU legislative context in which the legislation at issue in the main proceedings arises — whether, in terms of its territorial scope, that legislation meets the requirements of the principle of legal certainty.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Nexans SA, Nexans France v European Commission

(Case C-37/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Administrative procedure - Inspection - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable grounds - Geographic market))

2014/C 292/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nexans SA, Nexans France (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, avocat, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the appeal.

2)	Orders Nexans SA and Nexans France SAS to pay the costs of the present appeal.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-76/13) (1)

((Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations - Incorrect transposition - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment))

2014/C 292/06

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Braun, L. Nicolae and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent, assisted by L. Morais, advogado)

Operative part of the judgment

1)	By failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

2)	The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 3 million.

The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 10 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with that judgment.

4)	The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/6

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 — Electrabel SA v European Commission

(Case C-84/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Concentration of undertakings - Commission decision - Order for payment of a fine - Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Article 14(3) - Criteria to be taken into account in determining the amount of the fine - Taking into account the duration of the infringement - Principle of non-retroactivity of the law - Application of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 292/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Electrabel SA (represented by: M. Pittie and P. Honoré, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, V. Di Bucci and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Electrabel SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Kamino International Logistics BV (C-129/13), Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics BV (C-130/13) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Joined Cases C-129/13 and C-130/13) (1)

((Recovery of a customs debt - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Addressee of the recovery decision not heard by the customs authorities before its adoption, but only during the subsequent objection stage - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Determination of the legal consequences of non-observance of the rights of the defence))

2014/C 292/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kamino International Logistics BV (C-129/13), Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics BV (C-130/13)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities and the resulting right of every person to be heard before the adoption of any decision liable adversely to affect his interests, as they apply in the context of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, may be relied on directly by individuals before national courts.

The principle of respect for the rights of the defence and, in particular, the right of every person to be heard before the adoption of an adverse individual measure must be interpreted as meaning that, where the addressee of a demand for payment adopted in a procedure for the post-clearance recovery of customs duties on imports, under Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, he has not been heard by the authorities before the adoption of the decision, his rights of defence are infringed even though he can express his views during a subsequent administrative objection stage, if national legislation does not allow the addresses of such demands, in the absence of a prior hearing, to obtain suspension of their implementation until their possible amendment. Such is the case, in any event, if the national administrative procedure implementing the second subparagraph of Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, restricts the grant of such suspension where there is good reason to believe that the disputed decision is inconsistent with customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

The conditions under which observance of the rights of the defence is to be ensured and the consequences of the infringement of those rights are governed by national law, provided that the rules adopted to that effect are the same as those to which individuals in comparable situations under national law are subject (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights of defence conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness).

The national court, which is under an obligation to ensure that EU law is fully effective, may, when assessing the consequences of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, consider that such an infringement entails the annulment of the decision taken at the end of the administrative procedure at issue only if, had it not been for such an irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

(Case C-165/13) (1)

((Taxation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Articles 7, 8 and 9 - General arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Products released for consumption in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Whether excise duty is chargeable to a person holding those products who has acquired them in the Member State of destination - Acquisition at the end of the entry process))

2014/C 292/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanislav Gross

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to designate as liable to excise duty a person who holds for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that State, products subject to excise duty that have been released for consumption in another Member State, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person was not the first holder of those products in the Member State of destination.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques v Raquel Gianni da Silva

(Case C-189/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation making provision for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of unlawful entry in flagrante delicto - Response from the Court no longer necessary to resolve the dispute - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 292/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Defendant: Raquel Gianni da Silva

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling made by the juge des libertés et de la détention (liberty and custody judge) of the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France), by decision of 9 April 2013 (Case C-189/13).

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13) v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

(Joined Cases C-362/13, C-363/13 and C-407/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Maritime sector - Ferries making crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 3(1) - Concept of ‘fixed-term employment contract’ - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of fixed-term contracts - Penalties - Conversion of the employment contract into one of indefinite duration - Conditions))

2014/C 292/11

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13)

Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, who are employed as seafarers under fixed-term employment contracts on board ferries making sea crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State.

The provisions of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that fixed-term employment contracts have to indicate their duration, but not their termination date.

Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration only in circumstances where the worker concerned has been employed continuously under such contracts by the same employer for a period longer than one year, the employment relationship being considered to be continuous where the fixed-term employment contracts are separated by time lapses of less than or equal to 60 days. It is, however, for the referring court to satisfy itself that the conditions of application and the effective implementation of that legislation result in a measure that is adequate to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-524/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Article 10(c) - Conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company not involving any increase in capital - Fees demanded for the drawing up of a notarial act recording that conversion))

2014/C 292/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eycke Braun

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the Treasury is to receive a share of the fees charged by a notary employed as a civil servant when he draws up a notarial act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company, and which does not lead to an increase in the capital of the company making the acquisition or changing its legal form.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Tomassi

(Case C-210/14)

2014/C 292/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Daniela Tomassi

Questions referred

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Di Adamo

(Case C-211/14)

2014/C 292/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Massimiliano Di Adamo

Questions referred

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andrea De Ciantis

(Case C-212/14)

2014/C 292/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Andrea De Ciantis

Questions referred

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Romina Biolzi

(Case C-213/14)

2014/C 292/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Romina Biolzi

Questions referred

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Proia

(Case C-214/14)

2014/C 292/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Giuseppe Proia

Questions referred

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 26 May 2014 — Eugenia Florescu and Others v Casa Județeană de Pensii Sibiu and Others

(Case C-258/14)

2014/C 292/18

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties

Applicants for revision: Eugenia Florescu, Ioan Poiană, Cosmina Diaconu (as Mircea Bădilă’s heir), Anca Vidrighin (as Mircea Bădilă’s heir), Eugenia Elena Bădilă (as Mircea Bădilă’s heir)

Respondents: Casa Județeană de Pensii Sibiu, Casa Națională de Pensii și alte Drepturi de Asigurări Sociale, Ministerul Muncii, Familiei și Protecției Sociale, Statul Român prin Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice prin D.G.F.P. Sibiu

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

May a memorandum such as the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania of 23 June 2009, published in Monitorul Oficial No 455 of 1 July 2009, be regarded as an act, decision or communication having legal force within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case 59/75 Flavia Manghera [1976] and Case C-57/95 France v Commission [1997]) and may it be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

If the answer is in the affirmative, is the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania of 23 June 2009, published in Monitorul Oficial No 455 of 1 July 2009, to be interpreted as allowing the European Commission to require, for the purposes of reducing the effects of the economic crisis by reducing staff costs, the adoption of a national law which withdraws a person’s right to receive a contributory pension accrued over more than 30 years, which was legally established and received before that law came into force, on the ground that the person in question receives a salary for activity, carried out on the basis of an employment contract, other than the activity in respect of which he receives the pension?

Is the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania of 23 June 2009 to be interpreted as allowing the European Commission to require, for the purposes of reducing the effects of the economic crisis, the adoption of a national law which completely and indefinitely withdraws a person’s right to receive a contributory pension accrued over more than 30 years, which was legally established and received before that law came into force, on the ground that the person in question receives a salary for activity, carried out on the basis of an employment contract, other than the activity in respect of which he receives the pension?

On a proper construction of the Memorandum as a whole, and specifically of section (d) of paragraph 5 thereof, which concerns reforming and improving the efficiency of the public administration, was it lawful for the European Commission to require, for the purposes of reducing the effects of the economic crisis, the adoption of a national law which barred retired officials of the public institutions from receiving a salary in addition to the pension?

Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the principle of legal certainty enshrined in European Union (‘EU’) law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that set out in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004, which provides that, in the event of failure to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law, it is possible to revise decisions of national courts only in the context of administrative law proceedings and which does not allow decisions of national courts made in other areas (civil, criminal, commercial, and so on) to be revised in the event that such decisions are inconsistent with that principle?

Does Article 6 TEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which the payment of a professional judge’s pension, established on the basis of contributions made by that judge over more than 30 years of judicial service, is to be conditional upon the termination of his employment contract to teach law at university level?

Do Article 6 TEU, Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude legislation which divests a pension holder of his right to receive a pension, even though that pension has been established on the basis of contributions made over more than 30 years, where judges have made and continue to make separate pension contributions in respect of their university teaching activities?

Do Article 6 TEU, Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (which covers the equal treatment of persons regardless of race and ethnic origin) (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude the Constitutional Court of a Member State from delivering a judgment by which, in exercise of its jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law, it establishes that only persons appointed for a fixed term have the right to combine a pension with a salary, thereby denying that right to professional judges, who are barred from receiving their pension, established on the basis of personal contributions made over more than 30 years, because they have retained a position teaching law at university level?

9)	Do Article 6 TEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude legislation which indefinitely makes the payment of a judge’s pension, established on the basis of contributions made over more than 30 years, conditional upon termination of university employment?

10)

Do Article 6 TEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice preclude legislation which destroys the proper balance to be maintained between the protection of personal property, on the one hand, and general interest requirements, on the other, and which requires only one specific category of persons to lose their judicial pension by reason of the fact that they engage in university employment?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (România) lodged on 30 May 2014 — Județul Neamț v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

(Case C-260/14)

2014/C 292/19

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Județul Neamț

Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

Questions referred

Does the failure of a contracting authority, the beneficiary of a Structural Fund grant, to comply with rules concerning the award of a public contract of an estimated value lower than the threshold provided for by Article 7(a) of Directive [2004/18/EEC] (1) in connection with the award of a contract for the performance of the action covered by the grant, constitute an ‘irregularity’ (in Romanian: ‘abatere’) within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 (2) or an ‘irregularity’ (in Romanian ‘neregularitate’) within the meaning of Article [2](7) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (3)?

In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, it should be determined whether the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that financial corrections by Member States, if applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules concerning public contracts, are administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 or whether they are administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(c) of that regulation.

If the answer to the second question is to the effect that financial corrections by Member States are administrative penalties, it should be established whether the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty referred to in the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 applies.

In circumstances in which financial corrections have been applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules on public contracts, does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, having regard also to the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, prevent a Member State from applying financial corrections governed by an internal legislative measure which entered into force at a time after that at which it is maintained that the alleged infringement of the rules on public contracts took place?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 30 May 2014 — Județul Bacău v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

(Case C-261/14)

2014/C 292/20

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Județul Bacău

Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

Questions referred

Must the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) interpreted as meaning that financial corrections by Member States, if applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules concerning public contracts, are administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 (2) or are they administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(c) of that regulation?

If the answer to the first question is to the effect that financial corrections are administrative penalties, it must be established whether the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty referred to in the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 applies.

If the answer to the first question is to the effect that financial corrections are administrative penalties, then in circumstances in which financial corrections have been applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules on public contracts, does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, prevent a Member State from applying financial corrections governed by an internal legislative measure which entered into force at a time after that at which it is maintained that the alleged infringement of the rules on public contracts took place?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/17

Appeal brought on 9 June 2014 by the Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) v European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

(Case C-281/14 P)

2014/C 292/21

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (represented by: M. Muscardini, G. Greco and G. Carullo, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

after establishing that SACBO has a right of action and that the decision of 18 March 2013 is an actionable measure, set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 in Case T-270/13 and accordingly — if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — uphold in full the form of order sought at first instance, with all the attendant legal consequences, as follows: after establishing that there was no intention to evade payment and that the co-financed activity was not artificially subdivided, annul the decision adopted on 18 March 2013 by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) to the extent that it characterised as ineligible the external costs relating to Activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and consequently reduced the joint funding available and requested repayment of EUR 1 58 517,54;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal against the order by which the General Court declared the action inadmissible.

I.1-.

Regarding the finding that SACBO lacks legal standing. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the following provisions: fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; Articles 6 and 13 ECHR; Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article III.8.2 of Decision C (2010) 4456; second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to an inadequate and/or contradictory statement of reasons and decision; Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU.

—

the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that, as a co-financer, SACBO is responsible for the entire investment and the implementation thereof and is accordingly affected by all aspects of the contested decision, that is to say, by the non-recovery of the investments made, by the sums to be repaid, and by the complaints set out in that decision, all of which relate to SACBO’s conduct;

—	infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU, since the General Court failed to find that the recovery by ENAC (l’Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile) (Italian Civil Aviation Authority) of the joint funding is obligatory under EU law, with non-repayment constituting unlawful State aid;

—	the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s role in the process which led to the adoption of the contested decision;

—	the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s legal standing, arising from the harm done to its image as a result of the contested decision.

I .2-.

Regarding the finding that the contested decision is not an actionable measure. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and infringement of Article III.3.6 and Article III.3.9 of the financing decision; infringement and/or misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to a contradictory statement of reasons.

—	the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the financing decision also constitutes the repayment obligation as it clearly and definitively establishes the level of funding and the sums to be repaid;

—	the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the contested decision constitutes the final closing act in the funding reduction process, independent of and separate from the subsequent stage of actual recovery.

II.	Reproduction of the pleas in law relied upon at first instance (1) for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 207, p. 46.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj

(Case C-290/14)

2014/C 292/22

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Party to the main proceedings

Skerdjan Celaj

Question referred

Do the provisions of Directive 2008/115 (1) preclude a Member State’s legislation which provides for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of up to four years on an illegally staying third-country national [Or.10] who, having been returned to his country of origin neither as a criminal law sanction nor as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, has re-entered the territory of the State in breach of a lawful re-entry ban but has not been the subject of the coercive measures provided for by Article 8 of Directive 2008/115 with a view to his swift and effective removal?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/19

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-302/14)

2014/C 292/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet, K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

—

declare that, as regards Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), by failing to adopt, for some parts of its territory, the transposition provisions of the definitions in Article 2(2), (7) and (9) and the requirements laid down in Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Article 11(2) to (5), and Article 18 and Annex II or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 28(1) of the Directive;

—

impose upon the Kingdom of Belgium, under Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty of EUR 42 178,50 with effect from delivery of the judgment of the Court and payable to the European Union’s own resources account, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure;

—	order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2010/31/EU expired on 9 July 2012.

(1) OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 June 2014 — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation

(Case C-310/14)

2014/C 292/24

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hovioikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV

Defendant: Sportland Oy, in liquidation

Questions referred

1.	Is Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation (1) to be interpreted to the effect that ‘the act in the relevant case’ means that the act is not capable of being challenged after taking account of all the circumstances of the case?

If the answer to question 1 is affirmative and if the party affected by the application to challenge the act has relied on a provision of the law within the meaning of the first indent of Article 13, according to which the payment of a due debt may be challenged only in the circumstances provided for therein, which are not mentioned in the action based on the law of the State in which the insolvency proceedings are taking place,

(i)

are there reasons prohibiting an interpretation of Article 13 to the effect that the party seeking to challenge the act must, after becoming aware of that legal provision, plead those circumstances if, in accordance with the national law of the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings, that party has to plead all the circumstances founding the action to challenge the act, or

(ii)	must the party affected by action to challenge the act show that those circumstances did not exist and that therefore it is not possible to challenge the act under the provision in question, and the party seeking to challenge it does not need to rely specifically on those circumstances?

Regardless of the answer to question 2(i), is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that

(i)	the party affected by the action to challenge the act has the burden of proving that the circumstances provided for in the provision do not exist in the specific case, or

(ii)

may the burden of proof as to the existence of those circumstances be determined in accordance with the law of a Member State other than the State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened that is applicable to the act and which provides that the party challenging the act has the burden of proof, or

(iii)

may Article 13 be also be interpreted in such a way that the issue of the burden of proof is determined in accordance with the national law of the State of the court seised?

4.	Is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’ includes general provisions and principles of the law applicable to the act in addition to the insolvency rules of the law applicable to that act?

If the answer to question 4 is affirmative,

(i)

is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that the party affected by the action to challenge the act must show that the law within the meaning of Article 13 does not contain any general or other provisions or principles on the basis of which it would be possible to challenge the act in light of the facts presented, and

(ii)

under Article 13, may the court, if it considers that this party has adduced sufficient evidence, rule that the other party must establish the existence of a provision or principle of the bankruptcy law or general law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 13 which is applicable to the act and on the basis of which that act may indeed be challenged?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1)

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 July 2014 — Sanoma Media Finland Oy/Nelonen Media, Helsinki

(Case C-314/14)

2014/C 292/25

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sanoma Media Finland Oy/Nelonen Media, Helsinki

Other party: Viestintävirasto

Questions referred

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is Article 19(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) to be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legal provisions to the effect that screen splitting is not regarded as a break bumper that keeps the audiovisual programme distinct from television advertising, where one part of the screen is reserved for the programme’s closing credits and the other part to a schedule menu presenting the upcoming programmes on a broadcaster’s channel and no acoustic or optical device expressly announcing the start of an advertising break is broadcast either in the split screen or thereafter?

Taking into account the fact that Directive 2010/13 is in the nature of a minimum standard, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is Article 23(2) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning that it is not compatible with that provision to classify sponsor idents broadcast in connection with programmes other than the sponsored programmes as ‘advertising spots’ within the meaning of Article 23(1) of the Directive which must be included in the maximum permissible advertising time?

Taking into account the fact that Directive 2010/13 is in the nature of a minimum standard, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is the term ‘advertising spots’ in Article 23(1) of that directive in conjunction with the description of the maximum permissible advertising time (‘the proportion ... within a given clock hour shall not exceed 20 %’) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not compatible with that provision to count the ‘black seconds’ between individual advertising spots and at the end of an advertising break as advertising time?

(1) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/21

Action brought on 7 July 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-329/14)

2014/C 292/26

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Hermann and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

—

declare that, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, because it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures either as regards mainland Finland and with regard to the Åland Islands it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures;

—

order the Republic of Finland, on the basis of Article 260(3) TFEU to pay a fine of EUR 19 178,25 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice to be paid to the European Union’s own resources account, on the ground that it has failed to fulfil its obligation to indicate the measures by which the directive will be transposed into national law.

—	order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which to transpose the Directive expired on 9 July 2012.

(1) OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/23

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-463/07) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Premiums for bovines - Olive oil and fats - Dried fodder - Effectiveness of controls - System for penalties))

2014/C 292/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, and by G. Aiello and F. Bucalo, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and D. Nardi, agents)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28), in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/23

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Esso and Others v Commission

(Case T-540/08) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction))

2014/C 292/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Esso Société anonyme française (Courbevoie, France); Esso Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium); and Exxon Mobil Corp. (West Trenton, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, R. Snelders, L.-P. Rudolf and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) and for the reduction of the fine it imposes on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Esso Société anonyme française in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) at EUR 6 2 7 12 895;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Esso Société anonyme française;

4.	Orders Esso Deutschland GmbH, ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA and Exxon Mobil Corp. to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/24

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Sasol and Others v Commission

(Case T-541/08) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries and by a joint venture owned in part by it - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Succession of undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Setting a limit on the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction))

2014/C 292/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sasol (Rosebank, South Africa); Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); Sasol Wax International AG (Hamburg); and Sasol Wax GmbH (Hamburg) (represented by: W. Bosch, U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application, primarily, for annulment in part of the Commission’s decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH and Sasol had participated in the infringement before 1 July 2002;

Reduces the amount of the fine imposed on Sasol Wax GmbH to the sum of EUR 14 9 9 82 197 for the payment of which, first, Sasol Wax International AG shall be jointly and severally liable to the extent of EUR 11 9 1 22 197 and, secondly, Sasol and Sasol Holding in Germany shall be jointly and severally liable to the extent of EUR 7 1 0 42 197;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Sasol, Sasol Holding in Germany, Sasol Wax International and Sasol Wax;

5.	Orders Sasol, Sasol Holding in Germany, Sasol Wax International and Sasol Wax to bear one third of their own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/25

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — RWE and RWE Dea v Commission

(Case T-543/08) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiary and by a joint venture owned in part by it - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Succession of undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))

2014/C 292/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: RWE AG (Essen, Germany); and RWE Dea AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler, M. Röhrig and S. Budde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

Re:

Application, primarily, for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) in so far as the European Commission found therein that RWE AG and RWE Dea AG had participated in the infringement after 2 January 2002;

2.	Sets the amount of the fine imposed on RWE and RWE Dea at EUR 3 5 8 88 562;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by RWE and RWE Dea. RWE and RWE Dea shall bear four fifths of their own costs and pay four fifths of the Commission’s costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/26

Judgment of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-457/09) (1)

((State aid - Restructuring of WestLB - Aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Article 87(3)(b) EC - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market under certain conditions - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Collegiality - Obligation to state reasons - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 295 EC - Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))

2014/C 292/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Münster, Germany) (represented initially by A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, and subsequently by A. Rosenfeld and O. Corzilius, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn, K. Gross and B. Martenczuk, and subsequently by L. Flynn, B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/971/EC of 12 May 2009 on State aid C 43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) which Germany proposes to grant towards the restructuring of WestLB AG (OJ 2009 L 345, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Rejects the Commission’s request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate;

2.	Dismisses the action;

3.	Orders Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/27

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission

(Case T-533/10) (1)

((State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid planned by Spain for RTVE - Alteration of the funding scheme - Replacement of advertising revenues by new taxes on television and telecommunication operators - Decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market - Fiscal measure constituting the method by which the aid measure is financed - Tax necessarily hypothecated to the aid - Direct impact of the revenue of the tax on the amount of the aid - Proportionality))

2014/C 292/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Telefónica Móviles España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and N. Díaz Abad, subsequently by N. Díaz Abad, and lastly by M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado); and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE) (Madrid) (represented by: A. Martínez Sánchez and J. Rodríguez Ordóñez, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/1/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE) (OJ 2011 L 1, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

1.	The action is dismissed.

DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures, the costs of Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE), including those relating to the application for interim measures, and the costs of the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures, excluding the costs incurred by the latter due to the intervention of Telefónica de España, SA and Telefónica Móviles España, SA.

3.	Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España shall bear their own costs and pay, jointly, the costs incurred by the Commission due to their intervention.

4.	The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/28

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Isotis v Commission

(Case T-59/11) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) - Access-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, Emerge, Enable, Ask-It contracts - eTEN Programme relating to trans-European telecommunications networks - Navigabile and Euridice contracts - Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - T-Seniority contract - Payment of the final balance - Counterclaim - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Liquidated damages))

2014/C 292/33

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and V. Savov, acting as Agents, and S. Pappas, lawyer)

Re:

Applications, based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, to have declared unfounded the Commission’s application for reimbursement of subsidies paid to the applicant under contracts No 027020 ‘Access to e Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies’, No 035242 ‘A virtual platform to enhance and organise the coordination among centres for accessibility resources and support’, No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’, No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’, No 045056 ‘Emergency Monitoring and Prevention’, No 045563 ‘A wearable system supporting services to enable elderly people to live well, independently and at ease’, No 029255 ‘NavigAbile: e-inclusion for communication disabilities’, No 517506 ‘European Recommended Materials for Distance Learning Courses for Educators’ and No 224988 ‘T-Seniority: Expanding the benefits of information society to older people through digital TV channels’, concluded between the European Commission and the applicant, and, secondly, seeking an order that the Commission pay the final balance of subsidies under contracts No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’ and No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’ and, on the other hand, a counterclaim seeking an order that the applicant reimburse the subsidies wrongfully paid in the context of all of those contracts and liquidated damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action brought by Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis;

Orders Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis to pay the sum of EUR 9 99 213.45, plus interest calculated as from 15 June 2011, at the European Central Bank (ECB) rate increased by 3.5 points, corresponding to the reimbursement of financial contributions from which it benefited, under contracts No 027020 Access to e-Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies’, No 035242 ‘A virtual platform to enhance and organize the coordination among centres for accessibility resources and support’, No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’, No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’, No 045056 ‘Emergency Monitoring and Prevention », No 045563 ‘A wearable system supporting services to enable elderly people to live well, independently and at ease’, No 029255 ‘NavigAbile: e-inclusion for communication disabilities’, No 517506 ‘European Recommended Materials for Distance Learning Courses for Educators’ and No 224988 ‘T-Seniority: Expanding the benefits of information society to older people through digital TV channels’;

Orders Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis to pay the sum of EUR 70 471.47, plus interest calculated at the European Central Bank (ECB) rate increased by 3.5 points as from 5 August 2011, corresponding to liquidated damages under contracts No 027020 ‘Access to e-Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies’, No 035242 ‘A virtual platform to enhance and organize the coordination among centres for accessibility resources and support’, No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’, No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’, No 045056 ‘Emergency Monitoring and Prevention’, No 045563 ‘A wearable system supporting services to enable elderly people to live well, independently and at ease’;

4.	Orders Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/29

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission

(Case T-151/11) (1)

((State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid planned by Spain for RTVE - Alteration of the funding scheme - Replacement of advertising revenues by new taxes on television and telecommunication operators - Decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market - Procedural rights - New aid - Alteration of the existing aid scheme - Fiscal measure constituting the method by which the aid measure is financed - Tax necessarily hypothecated to the aid - Direct impact of the revenue of the tax on the amount of the aid - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 292/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Telefónica Móviles España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez, subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta and N. Díaz Abad, subsequently by N. Díaz Abad, and lastly by M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado); and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE) (Madrid) (represented by A. Martínez Sánchez, A. Vázquez-Guillén Fernandez de la Riva and J. Rodríguez Ordóñez, lawyers)

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Telefónica de España, SA and Telefónica Móviles España, SA shall bear their own costs and pay jointly the costs incurred by the European Commission and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE).

3.	The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/30

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Siemens v Commission

(Case T-223/11) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Contract for the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site - Non-performance of the contract - Default interest))

2014/C 292/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Risse, R. Harbst and H. Haller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Krämer, lawyers)

Re:

Action based on an arbitration clause seeking an order for reimbursement by the Commission of all or part of the costs of reprocessing fissile material incurred by the applicant in the context of the performance of Contract No AG 2052 relating to the lending of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre site in Ispra (Italy), and for default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Siemens AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/30

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission

(Case T-401/11 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Damage sustained by the close relatives of the deceased official - Damage sustained by the official before his death - Respective jurisdictions of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal - Rule of correspondence between the claim for compensation and the complaint against the decision dismissing that claim))

2014/C 292/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, acting on his own behalf and as the legal representative of the heirs of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, his son, former official of the European Commission (Kerkhove Avelgem, Belgium) (represented by: initially F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, and subsequently by F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Respondent: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, B. Eggers and L. Pignataro-Nolin, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission;

2.	Refers Case F-50/09 to the General Court, acting in exercise of its jurisdiction as a court of first instance, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU;

3.	Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/31

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Hassan v Council

(Case T-572/11) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Adaptation of claims - Out of time - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Action for damages))

2014/C 292/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), 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), Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 77), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1) and Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and (ii) payment of damages in compensation for harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action for annulment of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP as being inadmissible.

annuls, in so far as the acts concern Mr Samir Hassan:

—	Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

—	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

—	Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;

—	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;

—	Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739/CFSP;

—	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012;

—	Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

3)	Orders the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations to be maintained as regards Mr Hassan, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is brought in that period, until the date of any dismissal of that appeal.

4)	Dismisses the application for damages.

5)	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Hassan.

6)	Orders Mr Hassan to bear one half of his own costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/32

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — BSH v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)

(Case T-5/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Wash & Coffee - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Ex officio examination of the facts - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2011 (Case R 992/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Wash & Coffee as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/33

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Euroscript — Polska v European Parliament

(Case T-48/12) (1)

((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Supply of translation services into Polish - Decision amending the decision to place the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers - Award of the main framework contract to another tenderer - Request for re-evaluation - Time-limit - Suspension of procedure - Transparency - Equal treatment))

2014/C 292/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Daire and P. Biström, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2011 to classify the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers and to award it the main contract under public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56-090361), and, in the alternative, annulment of that public procurement procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2911 classifying Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. in first place on the list of successful tenderes and awarding it the main contract under the public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56 090361.

2.	Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109, 14 April 2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/34

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-52/12) (1)

((State aid - Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector))

2014/C 292/40

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, then by I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Triantafyllou and S. Thomas, then by D. Triantafyllou and R. Sauer, agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 (OJ 2012 L 78, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action.

2.	Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the action for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/34

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)

(Case T-204/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VIAVITA - Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA - No genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Viavita (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-P. Escande, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 419/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH and Viavita.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH 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 Viavita.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/35

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-295/12) (1)

((State aid - Animal carcass and slaughter waste disposal services - Maintaining epidemic reserve capacity - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation relating to a public service obligation - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Need for aid - Subsidiarity - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 292/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, assisted by T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Egerer and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/485/EU of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (OJ 2012 L 236, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/36

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission

(Case T-309/12) (1)

((State aid - Animal carcass and slaughter waste disposal services - Maintaining epidemic reserve capacity - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - ‘Undertaking’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation relating to a public service obligation - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Existing aid or new aid - Need for aid - Subsidiarity - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Proportionality))

2014/C 292/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Rivenich, Germany) (represented by: A. Kerkmann, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG (Selm, Germany); SecAnim GmbH (Lünen, Germany); and Knochen- und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU) (Selm) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Johann, lawyers)

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG, SecAnim GmbH and Knochen- und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU) to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings;

4.	Orders the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg to bear the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/37

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-376/12) (1)

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Dried grapes - Wine - Expenditure incurred by Greece - One-off financial correction - Method of calculating - Nature of the procedure for clearance of accounts - Link with expenditure financed by the European Union))

2014/C 292/44

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and S. Papaïoannou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2011 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) (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83), in so far as that decision concerns the dried grapes sector, in respect of financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the wine sector of the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2011 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) in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a one-off financial correction for the wine sector;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/37

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)

(Case T-425/12) (1)

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

2014/C 292/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 881/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/38

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)

(Case T-576/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT - Earlier Community word marks PROTECTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/46

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS (Carros, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 700/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS and Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/39

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council

(Case T-578/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Infra-State body - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Indication and choice of legal basis - Powers of the Council - Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts - Meaning of providing support to nuclear proliferation - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property))

2014/C 292/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: National Iranian Oil Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/39

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Laskiewicz v OHIM — Cables y Eslingas (PROTEKT)

(Case T-18/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT - Earlier Spanish word marks PROTEK - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/48

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Laskiewicz (Łódź) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, 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: Cables y Eslingas SA (Cerdanyola del Valles, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 701/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Cables y Eslingas SA and Mr Grzegorz Laskiewicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Grzegorz Laskiewicz to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 13 April 2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/40

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Erreà Sport v OHIM — Facchinelli (ANTONIO BACIONE)

(Case T-36/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ANTONIO BACIONE - Earlier Community figurative mark erreà and earlier national figurative mark representing two overlapping lozenges - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/49

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Erreà Sport SpA (Torrile, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Antonio Facchinelli (Dalang, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 1561/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Erreà Sport SpA and Antonio Facchinelli.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Erreà Sport SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/41

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle)

(Case T-66/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2), Article 75, Article 76(1) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2012 (Case R 129/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/42

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — Moallem Insurance v Council

(Case T-182/13) (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))

2014/C 292/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Moallem Insurance Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

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 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 (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 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, secondly, a declaration of the inapplicability to the applicant of Article 12 of Decision 2010/43 and Article 35 of 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 Moallem Insurance Co. 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 Moallem Insurance Co. 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 Moallem Insurance Co. 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 Moallem Insurance Co..

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/43

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)

(Case T-196/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘la nana’ - Earlier national word mark NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero (Maarssen, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2013 (Case R 300/2012-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/43

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Endoceutics v OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T-324/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FEMIVIA - Earlier Community word mark FEMIBION - International registration designating the European Community of the earlier figurative mark femibion - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1021/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Merck KGaA and Endoceutics, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/44

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — NIIT Insurance Technologies v OHIM (SUBSCRIBE)

(Case T-404/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SUBSCRIBE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Article 56 TFEU))

2014/C 292/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2013 (Case R 1308/2012-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SUBSCRIBE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/45

Action brought on 14 January 2014 — Kafetzakis and Others v Hellenic Republic and Others

(Case T-38/14)

2014/C 292/55

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Kafetzakis and 102 other applicants (Athens, Greece) (represented by: X. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

Defendants: Hellenic Republic, European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—	declare that the defendants have omitted to adopt legislation explicitly to except the bonds which were given of necessity to the applicants by the Hellenic Republic, on their being made redundant by the former Olympic Airways, as required by a decision of the European Commission;

—

order that the applicants and all employees made redundant of the former Olympic Airways be given by means of a Community act of direct effect, directive, regulation or other Community legal instrument the capacity to recover 100 % of the value of the bonds which were given to them in place of compensation on their compulsory redundancy-retirement from Olympic Airways and,

—

order payment of EUR 3 00 000 by means of a Community act of direct effect, directive, regulation or other Community legal instrument to each of the applicants as compensation for their suffering and distress, the flagrant breach of fundamental rights and the premature termination of their working lives.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: The legislative and other measures which led Greece to the compulsory participation in P.S.I. [private sector involvement in debt relief] of the holders of Greek State bonds governed by Greek law are in reality Community acts;

2.	Second plea in law: The measures adopted by the Greek Government to deal with Greek public debt were in reality imposed by the institutions of the European Union, including the European Central Bank and the European Commission;·

3.	Third plea in law: The defendants omitted to adopt legislation explicitly to except the Greek State bonds which were given to them of necessity by the Greek State as compensation by means of acts of the Council of Ministers, by which the terms of application of P.S.I. to Greece were specified;

Fourth plea in law: The assimilation of the workers made redundant by the former Olympic Airways with ordinary Greek State bondholders and the failure to except them and their express compensation from P.S.I. caused them direct, personal and serious harm, and deprived them of the enjoyment of their fundamental human rights;

5.	Fifth plea in law: All the legislative measures adopted by the Greek Government were on the instructions of and strictly speaking after a decision of Eurogroup, ΕCOFIN, the European Central Bank and the European Commission.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/46

Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Universal Music v OHIM — Yello Strom (Yellow Lounge)

(Case T-379/14)

2014/C 292/56

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Universal Music GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yello Strom GmbH (Cologne, 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 20 March 2014 in Case R 274/2013-4; and

—	order the defendant, and where appropriate the other party to the proceedings, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Universal Music GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Yellow Lounge’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 33 421

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Yello Strom GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Yello’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 7, 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

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

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/46

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)

(Case T-404/14)

2014/C 292/57

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: United Vehicles GmbH (Munich, 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 7 April 2014 in Case R 859/2013-4;

—	Uphold the appeal;

—	Uphold the opposition based on earlier Community trade mark No 6 0 25 399;

—	And dismiss the application for registration of the word mark ‘UNITED VEHICLES’;

—	Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: United Vehicles GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘UNITED VEHICLEs’ for services in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 30 041

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Junited’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37 and 39 to 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/47

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Larko v Commission

(Case T-412/14)

2014/C 292/58

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Drullerakes, Ε. Τriandafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, Ε. Randos, Ν. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	uphold this action in its entirety;·

—	declare to be null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4628/28/03/2014] in relation to the sale of certain assets of the applicant (No. SA.37954 (2013/N) and,

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the Commission of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant maintains that due to the failure first to hear the applicant it is evident that the adoption of the contested decision was vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement for its adoption.

The second plea in law is based on the infringement by the Commission of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (ΕC) No 659/99. (1) The applicant maintains that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that there was economic continuity between the applicant and the purchaser of its assets in the context of the ‘privatisation programme’.

The third plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU. The applicant maintains that the statement of reasons in the contested decision is insufficient as regards the lack of economic continuity, and particularly as regards (a) the scope of the assets which were sold, (b) the non-transfer of employment contracts and (c) the economic logic of the sale.

(1) Council Regulation (ΕC) No 659/1999 of 22 March1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/48

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Larko v Commission

(Case T-423/14)

2014/C 292/59

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Drullerakes, Ε. Τriandafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, Ε. Randos, Ν. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	uphold this action in its entirety;·

—	declare null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4621/28/03/2014] on State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic in favour of the applicant (No SA.34572 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);·

—	order that whatever amount may have been ‘recovered’ directly or indirectly from the applicant in execution of the contested decision be reimbursed with interest and,

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the defendant of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU since: (a) the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 cannot be categorised as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and (b) even if some of the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 could be categorised as constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, that aid is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU.

The second plea in law is based on the erroneous application, for which no reasons are stated, of the criteria in the Commission Notice on guarantees [OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10] and infringement of the principle of proportionality in respect of the characterisation of measures 2, 4 and 6 as State aid and in respect of the quantification of the aid element.

The third plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account, in the assessment of measures 3, 4 and 6, of the damage which was caused to the applicant by the exceptional occurrences of 2009, which meets the conditions for the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

The fourth plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account the circumstances of the Greek economic crisis and the consequent cessation of payment by the Greek State of benefits in favour of the applicant, as an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

The fifth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the errors in section 4.5 and in the operative part of the contested decision, as regards the amount to be recovered: infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, an insufficient statement of reasons, infringement of the principle of proportionality, breach of the right to property and the punitive character of the order for recovery.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/49

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Warimex v OHIM (STONE)

(Case T-454/14)

2014/C 292/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Warimex Waren-Import-Export Handels GmbH (Neuried, Germany) (represented by E. Keller and J. Voogd, lawyers)

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 27 March 2014 in Case R 1599/2013-1;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘STONE’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 64 005

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

—	Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/50

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

(Case T-468/14)

2014/C 292/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the eDIGIREGION project, order the applicant to be indemnified for the losses suffered, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 3 0 55 000, or in the alternative the amount determined by the judicial expert, together with the interest accruing in accordance with the expert’s report, and expressly order that this be paid by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the decision to refuse to allow the applicant — an undertaking engaged principally in telecommunications, R&D and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation — to participate in the European eDIGIREGION project under the Seventh Framework Programme.

In this regard, the applicant states that it has participated in developing the proposal for the eDIGIREGION project since its creation, in close connection with other entities and held a number of meetings in Brussels and several audio conferences between July 2011 and January 2012, resulting in the formation of a European Consortium which submitted a proposal for an eDIGIREGION project (Realizing the Digital Agenda through Transnational Cooperation between Regions). The applicant is partner number 5 of the Consortium with a budget of EUR 4 91 400.00 and a contribution from the Commission of EUR 4 38 165 ,00. (14,61 % of the total requested).

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the arguments put forward by the European Commission are totally unjustified, as they infringe the main requirement necessary if the latter is to be able to decide to suspend the participation of an undertaking in a project which has been positively appraised; the arguments must be clear, unequivocal and properly substantiated.

Specifically, the applicant states that it is technically and operationally prepared to participate in the eDIGIREGION Consortium, it has sufficient financial capacity to take on its share of the co-financing, and it has sufficient experience in the management and administration of projects.

In this respect, the applicant considers that there is a manifest inconsistency between what the Director General signed in the text of the letter giving notice of the suspension of the participation in the project and the arguments set out in the Annex to that letter.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/50

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v. OHIM (ELITEPAD)

(Case T-470/14)

2014/C 292/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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 in Case R 884/2013-2;

—	Award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELITEPAD’ for goods in Class 9 Community trade mark application No 1 1 3 18 284

Decision of the Examiner: The application was refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Pleas in law: Violation of Art. 7 (1) (c) and Art. 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/51

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-494/14)

2014/C 292/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Klymenko (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Shaw, QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Decision 2014/216 and Regulation 381/2014 with immediate effect in so far as they apply to Mr Klymenko, and

—	order the Council to pay Mr Klymenko’s costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection as the applicant was unaware of the investigation against him, on the basis of which he was included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the contested restrictive measures, and was provided with no details of it by either the Council or the Ukrainian authorities. The applicant further alleges that he was not provided with the grounds for listing nor therefore given an opportunity to submit observations.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of evidence as the facts show that the applicant fought corruption when he was in office in Ukraine and that he was not engaged in embezzlement of Ukrainian state funds.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, non-fulfilment of the criteria laid down in Article 1(1) of decision 2014/119 and misuse of powers as the grounds for listing the applicant are vague and non-specific. The applicant submits that the Council has therefore not shown that he falls under the criteria of Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119, whereby his listing amounts to a misuse of powers.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property and the principle of proportionality as the freeze of the applicant’s funds constitutes an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to property.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/52

Action brought on 26 June14 — Theodorakis and Theodoraki v Council

(Case T-495/14)

2014/C 292/64

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Theodorakis (Chania. Greece) and Maria Theodoraki (Chania. Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1 4 31 193 ,58, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

—

in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicants 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 1 1 44 954 ,86, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

—	in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicants as compensation for the damage caused to the applicants by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicants by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicants by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

—	order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicants seek from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage they have suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

The applicants maintain that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicants’ bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.

In particular, the applicants maintain that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

—	First, infringement of the right to property;

—	Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

—	Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.

—	The applicants submit that the conditions, as laid down in settled case-law, for the defendant incurring non-contractual liability to pay compensation to them are satisfied

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/53

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Berry Investments v Council

(Case T-496/14)

2014/C 292/65

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Berry Investments (Monrovia, Liberia) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 4 36 357 ,19, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

—

in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 3 49 085 ,75, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

—	in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicant as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicant seeks from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage it has suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

The applicant maintains that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicant’s bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.

In particular, the applicant maintains that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

—	First, infringement of the right to property;

—	Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

—	Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.

—	The applicant submits that the conditions, as laid down in settled case-law, for the defendant incurring non-contractual liability to pay compensation to it, are satisfied.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/54

Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

(Case T-505/14)

2014/C 292/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Seven for all mankind LLC (Vernon, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

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 9 April 2014 given in Case R 1277/2013-1;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 4 4 43 222

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 figurative Community trademarks containing the verbal element ‘Seven’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

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

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

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/55

Action brought on 6 July 2014 — Gas Natural v Commission

(Case T-508/14)

2014/C 292/67

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gas Natural SDG, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F. Seijo Pérez, R. García Gómez de Zamora and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests Commission Decision 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, Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission and Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

The applicant alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, in that the Commission failed to prove the selective nature of the alleged aid and its effect on trade between Member States; breach of Article 107(1) TFEU and the duty to state reasons, in that the Commission identified the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries of the alleged aid; infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and of the principle that powers must not be misused, in that the contested decision makes a determination as to the validity of clauses in private contracts; and breach of the principle of legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of equal treatment; and infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/56

Action brought on 7 July 2014 — Decal España v Commission

(Case T-509/14)

2014/C 292/68

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Decal España, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Silva Sánchez, 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 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, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; 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.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/56

Appeal brought on 9 July 2014 by Christodoulos Alexandrou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Case F-34/13 Alexandrou v Commission

(Case T-515/14 P)

2014/C 292/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by R. Duta, lawyer)

Respondent: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

—	admit the present appeal, declare it well founded;

—	therefore, amend or set aside the judgment under appeal, on the basis of the grounds set out;

—	in so far as is necessary, refer the case in the course of the proceedings to the European Civil Service Tribunal;

—	order the respondent to pay the entirety of the costs and expenses of the two proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the appellant invokes three grounds of appeal.

1.	First ground of appeal alleges a failure to give sufficient reasons in the contested decision, connected in particular with the Commission’s refusal to grant the appellant’s application to have access to the seven questions which he allegedly failed.

2.	Second ground of appeal alleges an infringement of the right to an effective remedy, in so far as, without having the questions requested at his disposal, the appellant was deprived of the means of an effective remedy against the decision to reject his application.

3.	Third ground of appeal alleges a failure, by the Civil Service Tribunal, to use Article 4(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/57

Appeal brought on 9 July 2014 by Christodoulos Alexandrou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Case F-140/12, Alexandrou v Commission

(Case T-516/14 P)

2014/C 292/70

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by R. Duta, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	without prejudice to any pleas in law and in fact and evidence offered in support to be produced and supplied later, declare the present appeal formally admissible and well founded;

—	consequently, reverse if not set aside the judgment under appeal on the basis of the claims set out;

—	if necessary, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to give judgment in accordance with the judgment to be given on the appeal;

—	order the European Commission to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal refused to assess the applicant’s arguments based on Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and, in particular, Article 9(4) thereof.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the judgment of 29 June 2011 in Angioi v Commission, F-7/07, ECR-SC, EU:F:2011:97, inasmuch as this is a restrictive, obsolete line of case-law inapplicable to non-paper-based competitions.

In the alternative, if the judgment in Angioi v Commission should be found to be applicable, the applicant considers that he satisfies the criteria established by that case-law.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to apply Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

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

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/60

Action brought on 18 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-36/14)

2014/C 292/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decisions, firstly, rejecting the application for extension of the applicant’s service and, secondly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 28 March 2014, together with the decision of the Director-General of DG ENTR of 7 April 2014, rejecting the application for extension of the applicant’s service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014;

—	Remedy the losses which have resulted or may result from the contested decisions;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/60

Action brought on 30 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-40/14)

2014/C 292/78

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to increase the applicant’s pension rights in the European Union pension scheme by application of the new General Implementing Provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

—	Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of 3 March 2011 of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials inapplicable;

—

Annul the decisions of 30 September 2013 and 9 December 2013 to increase the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, on their transfer into the EU institutions’ pension scheme, by application of the General Implementing Provisions of 3 March 2011 of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/61

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-43/14)

2014/C 292/79

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension rights in the European Union pension scheme pursuant to the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the decision of 19 August 2013 which closes the file concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired from the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS) (National Old-Age Insurance Fund for Employees).

Form of order sought

—	Declare unlawful and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

—

Annul the decision of 18 September 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before taking up his duties, in the context of the transfer of those rights in the EU institutions’ pension scheme, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

—	Annul the decision of 19 August 2013 to close the file concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired from the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS);

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/62

Action brought on 22 May 2014 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

(Case F-49/14)

2014/C 292/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M.C. García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision appointing the applicants’ initial assessor for the reporting year for 2013.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of 4 March 2013, confirmed by letter of 8 April 2014, in which the applicants were informed of the appointment of Mr X as initial assessor;

—	If necessary, suspend the 2013 staff reporting procedure;

—	Suspend Ms X from all her duties with immediate effect;

—	Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

1.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/63

Action brought on 23 June 2014 — ZZ v EMA

(Case F-58/14)

2014/C 292/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the EMA not to renew the applicant’s contract of employment as temporary agent and compensation for the alleged damage suffered.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of the EMA of 12 September 2013 not to renew the applicant’s contract of employment;

—	Together with, and so far as necessary, the EMA’s decision dated 13 March 2014, rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 19 November 2013 against the aforementioned decision;

—	Repair the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;

—	Repair the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 20 000;

—	Order the EMA to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 292

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 57 1 September 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 292/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1