15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/1

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/2

1.

Is Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that a construction project for a bridge which does not directly serve the management of the site and which was authorised before that site was included in the list of sites of Community importance must be the subject of an impact assessment prior to its implementation if the site was included in that list after authorisation was granted but before the project was implemented and only a risk assessment/preliminary assessment was undertaken before the authorisation was granted?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

When undertaking a subsequent review, must the national authority observe the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive where it wanted to use those provisions as a precautionary basis for the risk assessment/preliminary assessment preceding the grant of the authorisation?

3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2 in the negative:

What requirements should be applied under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive to a subsequent review of an authorisation granted for a project and to what date should the review relate?

4.

In the context of supplementary proceedings seeking to remedy an error found in a subsequent review under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive or in an impact assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, is account to be taken, by appropriate amendments to the review requirements, of the fact that the structure was permitted to be constructed and put into service because the planning decision was immediately enforceable and proceedings for interim measures had been dismissed with final effect? In any event, does that apply to an alternative subsequent review which is necessary in the context of a decision under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/3

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?

3.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/4

1)

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?

2)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/4

1)

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?

2)

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?

3)

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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/5

1)

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?

2)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/6

1)

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?

2)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/6

1)

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?

2)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/7

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/8

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/8

1.

Must Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 (1), in the version currently in force, be interpreted as meaning that Type I marketing authorisation variations — and, in particular, in respect of the case in the main proceedings, Type IA variations — where an identical variation affecting several authorisations belonging to the same holder are concerned, are subject to a single fee, to the extent specified therein, or to as many fees as there are authorisations affected by the variation?

2.

In the circumstances in the present proceedings, may or must, as held by this Chamber, the question be referred to the Court of Justice?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/9

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites identified in point 26 of the present application (non-hazardous waste landfills in Urtuella in the Basque Country, and in Zurita and Juan Grande in the Canary Islands), the measures necessary to request the relevant operator to prepare a conditioning plan and ensure full implementation of that plan in accordance with the requirements of the directive, with the exception of those listed in Annex I, point 1, within eight years after the date laid down in Article 18(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(c) of the directive in relation to each of the landfill sites listed.

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites identified in point 37 of the present application (9 non-hazardous waste landfills (Vélez Rubio (Almería), Alcolea de Cinca (Huesca), Sariñena (Huesca), Tamarite de Litera (Huesca), Somontano — Barbastro (Huesca), Barranco de Sedases (Fraga, Huesca), Barranco Seco (Puntallana, La Palma), Jumilla (Murcia) y Legazpia (Guipuzkoa)) and 19 inert waste landfills (Sierra Valleja (Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz), Carretera Pantano del Rumblar (Baños de la Encina, Jaén), Barranco de la Cueva (Bélmez de la Moraleda, Jaén), Cerrajón (Castillo de Locution, Jaén), Las Canters (Jimena y Bed mar, Jaén), Hoya del Pine (Siles, Jaén), Bella vista (Finca El Coronel, Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), El Patarín (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), Carretera de Arahal-Morón de la Frontera (Arahal, Sevilla), Carretera de Almadén de la Plata (Cazalla de la Sierra, Sevilla), El Chaparral (Écija, Sevilla), Carretera A-92, KM 57,5 (Morón de la Frontera, Sevilla), Carretera 3118 Fuente Leona — Cumbres mayores (Colina Barragona, Huelva), Llanos del Campo (Grazalema — Benamahoma, Cádiz) Andrada Baja (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), Las Zorreras (Aldeira, Granada), Carretera de los Villares (Andújar, Jaén) La Chacona (Cabra, Córdoba) and el Chaparral — La Sombrerera (Puerto Serrano, Cádiz))), the measures necessary to close as soon as possible, pursuant to Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Directive 1999/31, the sites which had not been granted, under Article 8 of that directive, a permit to continue to operate, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of each of the landfills listed in Article 14(b) of the directive.

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/10

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10 H v. Council of the European Union, European Commission and ‘EUPM’, insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of the personnel of the EUPM, by which the Applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if necessary, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission, referred to in Article 6 of the Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009, on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and second, for damages;

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

—

order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings.

—

Infringement of the right of defence

—

Infringement of Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure

—

Error in law

—

Infringement of European Law

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/11

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/12

1)

Must the term ‘inquiry’ in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC (1) of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance be interpreted as covering the procedure before the UWV [Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (Employee Insurance Agency)], in which the employer requests a dismissal permit in order to bring to an end the employment contract with the employee (who is covered by legal expenses insurance)?

2)

If the answer to Question 1 depends on the characteristics of the specific procedure, in combination, if necessary, with the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of which characteristics, facts and circumstances must the national court then determine whether that procedure is to be regarded as constituting an inquiry within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/12

1)

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?

2)

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?

3)

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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/13

1)

Must Article 3 and Article 94(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a former seaman who belonged to the crew of a vessel with a home port in a Member State, who had no place of residence on shore and who was not a national of a Member State, cannot be denied (in part) an old-age pension, after the State of which that seaman is a national acceded to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union or after Regulation No 1408/71 entered into force for that State, solely on the ground that that former seaman was not a national of the (first-mentioned) Member State during the period of the (claimed) insurance cover?

2)

Must Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State under which a seaman who belonged to the crew of a vessel with a home port in that Member State, who had no place of residence on shore and who is not a national of any Member State, was excluded from insurance cover for purposes of an old-age pension, whereas, under that rule, a seaman who is a national of the Member State in which the vessel has its home port and who is otherwise in the same situation is deemed to be insured, if the State of which the first-named seaman is a national has in the meanwhile, by the time of the determination of the pension, acceded to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union or Regulation No 1408/71 has in the meanwhile entered into force for that State?

3)

Must Questions 1 and 2 be answered in the same way in the case of a (former) seaman who, at the time of his employment, was a national of a State which at a later date accedes to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union, but who, at the time of that accession or the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71 for that State, and at the time of submitting his claim to entitlement to an old-age pension, was not a national of any Member State, but to whom Regulation No 1408/71 nevertheless applies pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation No 859/2003 (2)?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/14

1)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out 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?

2)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out 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?

3)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out 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?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/15

1)

Does it run counter to REACH (1) that a person who, in the course of a business, imports a chemical product into Sweden — in respect of which there is an obligation to notify under REACH — must notify it in accordance with the Swedish legislation to the Kemikalieinspektionen for registration in the Swedish product register?

2)

If the answer to question 1 is negative, does the Swedish obligation to notify run counter to Article 34 TFEU, having regard to the exceptions in Article 36 TFEU?

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/16

1)

Dismisses the action;

2)

Orders Vtesse Networks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and British Telecommunications plc;

3)

Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/17

1)

Dismisses the action;

2)

Orders Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/17

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 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 a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the grant of entitlements from the national reserve to new farmers;

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Declares that the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic are to bear their own costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/18

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission.

3.

Orders the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear its own costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/19

1.

Dismisses the application in Case T-307/12;

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application in Case T-408/13.

3.

Orders Mr Adib Mayaleh to pay the costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/20

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech to pay the costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/20

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/21

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of Council Decision 2013/72/CFSP of 31 January 2013 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as that decision concerns Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali.

2.

The remainder of the action is dismissed.

3.

Mr Ben Ali and the Council of the European Union are each ordered to bear their own costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/22

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Constantinos Mallis and Elli Constantinou Malli are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/22

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/23

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/24

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Lella Khatziioannou is ordered to pay, in addition to her own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/24

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Marinos Nikolaou is ordered to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/25

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Mrs Chrisanthi Christodoulou and Mrs Maria Stavrinou are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB).

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/26

—

annul the contested decision in part;

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/26

—

set aside Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation, as regards the part which is worded: ‘- by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous –’;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/27

—

declare invalid the Commission’s decision, contained in the letter of 15 July 2014, by which the Commission demands the Slovak Republic to make available the funds corresponding to the loss of traditional own resources; and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Commission’s lack of jurisdiction

According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision. No provision of EU law confers jurisdiction on the Commission to act in the way it acted by issuing the contested decision or the jurisdiction, following the quantification of the amount of the loss of traditional own resources in the form of uncollected import duty, to order a Member State, which was not responsible for the assessment or collection of that duty, to make available the funds in the amount specified in the decision, which, the Slovak Republic submits, does not correspond to the stated loss.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty

Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty. The obligation on the Slovak Republic, imposed on it by the contested decision, was, in the opinion of that Member State, not possible to predict before that decision was issued.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly

Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision and, in issuing that decision, it also acted in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, did not exercise that jurisdiction correctly. First, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it demands payment of the funds from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that the loss of traditional own resources did not occur at all, or did not occur as a direct result of the events which the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. Secondly, the Commission infringed the Slovak Republic’s rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging inadequate reasons were stated for the contested decision

In connection with this plea, the Slovak Republic argues that there are several flaws in the statement of reasons for the contested decision, as a result of which it must be regarded as inadequate. This constitutes an infringement of basic procedural legislation and also fails to meet the requirements of legal certainty. According to the Slovak Republic, the Commission failed in the contested decision to state its legal basis. It also provided no explanation of the origin and basis of some of its findings. Lastly, the Slovak Republic submits that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is contradictory.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/28

—

annul the European Commission decision No DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2431467 (2014) of 11/07/2014, whereby the Commission classified the applicants’ tender in fourth position in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 1;

—

annul the European Commission decision DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2703722 (2014) of 31/07/2014, whereby the Commission eliminated the applicants’ tender in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 2;

—

annul the European Commission decision DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2711165 (2014) 31/07/2014, whereby the Commission classified the applicants’ tender in third position in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 3;

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants in respect of the lost opportunity to be classified in first position for the three lots of the framework contract, which they estimate at eight hundred thousand euros (EUR 8 00  000) with respect to Lot 1, four hundred thousand euros (EUR 4 00  000) with respect to Lot 2 and two hundred thousand euros (EUR 2 00  000) with respect to Lot 3, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment, and

—

order the Commission to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.

1.

First, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regards to the applicants’ technical tender.

2.

Second, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application and of the tendering documents, with regard to the question of abnormally low tenders.

3.

Second, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the principle of free competition, since the Commission imposed binding conditions with regard to the submission of the financial tenders and did not permit the tenderers freely to construct their financial tenders, in order to choose the most economically advantageous tender.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/29

—

annul Commission Decision in of 15 July 2014 in Case AT.39899 — Licensing of intellectual property rights for football collectibles, which rejected the applicant's complaint that a number of national football governing bodies and players' associations together with Panini S.p.A., Union des Associations Européennes de Football, Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Fédération Française de Football, Associazione Italiana Calciatori, Real Federación Española de Fútbol, and Deutscher Fußball-Bund had breached Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant's cost of these proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has seriously infringed the applicant's procedural rights, and as such, the defendant has committed an error of law.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant's Decision is based on incorrect facts and is subject to a manifest error of appraisal, and as such, the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/30

—

instruct an expert report, in order that there should be examined the reported finding in the audit report of KPMG Certified Auditors AG, which was wrongly and unlawfully accepted by the European Commission, that there is a ‘lack of alternative evidence to confirm the requested personnel costs’. That factor is of crucial importance to the outcome of the case, since the personnel costs incorporate all the indirect costs. The applicant emphasises that the audit report of KPMG AG, in respect of which DABNET AEBE submitted written comments and a request for a re-examination with full supporting evidence, was accepted by the European Commission without a sufficient statement of reasons or any response to the evidence, and

—

declare, first, that the debit note No 3241409008, which was sent to the applicant on 31/07/2014 and which requested repayment of EUR 64  574 ,73, in respect of the agreement relating to the FP7-SME-2007-222303 ‘FIREROB’ project on the basis of the audit 12-ΒΑ176-003, is contrary to the contractual obligations of the Commission and is unfounded, second, that the costs which the applicant submitted within the framework of the agreement at issue are eligible costs and, consequently, that the Commission is obliged to issue a credit note for EUR 64  574 ,73.

1.

The first plea is based on the arbitration clause. The applicant maintains, first, that the evidence submitted fully proves the engagement of the applicant’s staff on the ‘FIREROB’ project, second, that at no point in the audit report is it stated that the applicant’s personnel did not perform the work carried out within the framework of the ‘FIREROB’ agreement or that false information was produced by the applicant, and, third, that the applicant undertook to provide personnel for 12,2 person-months and that the applicant provided in total 21,92 person-months without seeking an amendment to the agreed budget.

2.

The second plea is based on a claimed abuse of rights. The applicant maintains that the Commission’s request for repayment of the sum of EUR 64  574 ,73, in other word a sum which is almost five times greater than the applicant’s direct subsidy (EUR 13  474 ,00) for work which was optimally performed by the applicant, is disproportionate and contrary to the principle of performance of contracts in good faith.

3.

The third plea is based on a claimed infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant maintains that the lawful right was not given to the applicant to submit its lawful objections directly to the auditor appointed by the European Commission and to clarify the unsupported arguments of the author of the draft audit report.

4.

The fourth plea is based on the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that Article ΙΙ.24.1 of Annex II to the ‘FIREROB’ agreement gave to the Commission the discretion not to request the payment of damages, given that the applicant produced work which was assessed very positively and in which, according to the European Commission’s Technical Report, scientific results of a very high level were achieved.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/31

—

annul the Commission Decision dated 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Case Comp/AT. 39.612 — perindopril (Servier)) in its entirety, and in any event annul and/or reduce the fine imposed, in so far as it applies to Unichem; and

—

order the Commission to pay its own costs and Unichem’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

1.

In the first plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to address a decision under Art. 101(1) TFEU to Unichem.

2.

In the second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission fails to apply the correct ‘objective necessity’ legal test to determine whether the patent settlement agreement falls within the ambit of Art. 101(1) TFEU.

3.

In the third plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission breaches the principle of equal treatment by not applying the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation Guidelines to Unichem’s settlement.

4.

In the fourth plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission errs in law by categorising the settlement as a ‘by object’ Art. 101(1) TFEU violation.

5.

In the fifth plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission misapplies its own purported Art. 101(1) ‘by object’ legal test to the specific Unichem facts.

6.

In the sixth plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission errs in law by concluding that the settlement agreement resulted in anticompetitive effects.

7.

In the seventh plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission breaches its duty under Art. 296 to state reasons why it considers Unichem can be held directly liable for infringement of Art. 101(1) TFEU when it is not a potential competitor of Servier.

8.

In the eighth plea in law, the applicant alleges that, in the alternative, the Commission errs in law by not recognising that the settlement agreement satisfies the exemption criteria under Art. 101(3) TFEU.

9.

In the ninth plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission breaches the rights of defence, principle of sound administration and its duty not to act oppressively to obtain legally privileged documents to use against Unichem.

10.

In the tenth plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission breaches the general EU principle of equal treatment in its fine calculation by treating Unichem differently to Servier without objective justification.

11.

In the eleventh plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringes the general EU law principle of proportionality, its own fining guidelines and prior established practice when it imposed a fine on Unichem.

12.

In the twelfth plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission violates its duty to state reasons pursuant to Art. 296 TFEU in respect of its fine calculation and its assessment of the gravity of Unichem’s alleged infringement.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/32

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the Applicant; and

—

order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person concerned was ‘responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria’, or a person ‘benefiting from or supporting the regime’, or a person associated with any such person. The Council failed to establish that the reasons relied on against the entity concerned were well founded.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has at no stage been given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against it, as required by the case law of the Court.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council. The Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate. The interference with the applicant extends beyond a financial impact, and has also resulted in damage to its reputation.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant has in fact provided ‘support to the Syrian regime’ and to have benefited from the regime.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/33

—

declare that EFSA acted in violation of the Aarhus Convention, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 concerning the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011;

—

annul EFSA’s decision of 30 July 2014;

—

order EFSA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(4) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (‘Aarhus Convention’) as approved by the Council Decision 2005/370/EC, of 17 February 2005, as well as in breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to Community institutions and bodies (‘the Aarhus Regulation’) and of Article 4(2) of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In breach of these provisions EFSA did not recognise in the contested Decision the obligation to disclose information relating to emissions into the environment contained in the documents requested.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested Decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of its obligation to act in compliance with an Aarhus Convention compliant interpretation of the ground of refusal laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on the basis of Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/34

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

—

order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person concerned was ‘responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria’, or a person ‘benefiting from or supporting the regime’, or a person associated with any such person. The Council failed to establish that the reasons relied on against the entity concerned were well founded.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has, at no stage, been given ‘serious and credible evidence’ or ‘concrete evidence and information’ in support of a case which would justify restrictive measures against it, as required by the case law of the Court.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for its inclusion.

4.

Fourth plea in law, the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put its case effectively to the Council. The Council has not demonstrated that the very significant interference with the applicant’s property rights is justified and proportionate. The interference with the applicant extends beyond a financial impact, and has also resulted in damage to its reputation.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Contrary to the sole reason for his inclusion, there is no information or evidence available that the applicant has in fact provided ‘support to the Syrian regime’ and to has benefited from the regime. The Council has also wrongly identified the applicant as ‘Tri Ocean Trading a.k.a. Tri-Ocean Energy’ suggesting that the two legal persons are the same. The applicant is a separate company, distinct from Tri Ocean Trading.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/35

—

annul Article 4 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014;

—

annul Article 3 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014; and

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and of and fundamental rights.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/36

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/37

—

declare the present appeal as well founded and annul the contested decision;

—

order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should they appear as parties in the present process, to pay the costs.

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/38

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders DH to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/38

1)

There is no longer any need to rule on the action.

2)

Each party is to bear its own costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/39

—

annul the Commission’s decision, reference HR.D.2/AS/ac/Ares(2014) of 5 June 2014 relating to his complaint, registered on 12 February 2014 with HR.D.2, ‘Appeals and case monitoring’, under reference no R/227/14;

—

oblige the appointing authority to recognise his daughter, continuously and retroactively from 1 September 2013, as being a dependent child in education and for this reason to continue to grant the child allowance for his daughter continuously and retroactively from 1 September 2013 and to continue to provide, continuously and retroactively from 1 September 2013, his daughter’s medical expenses.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/40

—

Annul the European Parliament’s decision of 5 March 2014 which rejected the applicant’s application of 16 December 2013 for damages, as well as the implied rejection of his complaint of 24 March 2014 against that decision, and, in the alternative, the subsequent decision of 29 July 2014 by an unknown author;

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30  000 for non-financial damages, together with interest for late payment at the rate of five percentage points above the base rate on EUR 25  000 from 1 February 2014 and on EUR 5  000 from 1 May 2014;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the pre-litigation procedure and all necessary expenses and costs incurred by the applicant.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/40

—

annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the decision contained in Staff Note (‘SN’) 13/14 (Decision No 2/2014) of 9 January 2014, which amended the regime applicable to travelling time, following the applicability from 1 January 2014 of the provision in Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations, and Staff Note (‘SN’) 9/14 (Decision No 12/2014), which amended the travel expenses regime following the applicability from 1 January 2014 of the provision in Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, published in the Official Journal No L 187 of 29 October 2013. The application for annulment is limited to the part of the SN which links entitlement to travel expenses and to travelling time to the expatriation or foreign residence allowance and to Article 6 of the SN 9/14 which introduced new criteria for the determination of the place of origin;

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 1 69  051 ,96 in respect of the material harm suffered and EUR 40  000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

—

order the defendant to pay damages plus default interest at the rate of 6,75 in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/41

—

Declare unlawful Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

—

Annul the decision not to award from 2014 onwards any travelling time or the reimbursement of annual travel expenses to the applicants;

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.