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

(2015/C 107/01)

Last publication

OJ C 96, 23.3.2015

Past publications

OJ C 89, 16.3.2015

OJ C 81, 9.3.2015

OJ C 73, 2.3.2015

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015

OJ C 56, 16.2.2015

OJ C 46, 9.2.2015

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 February 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-172/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Group relief - Transfer of losses sustained by a non-resident subsidiary - Conditions - Date to be used for determining whether the losses of the non-resident subsidiary are definitive))

(2015/C 107/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, S. Brighouse and A. Robinson, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Ewart QC and S. Ford, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

3)	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

(Case C-282/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 5(6) - Rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 4(1) - Right of appeal against a decision of a national regulatory authority - Meaning of ‘undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority’ - Article 9b - Transfer of individual rights to use radio frequencies - Reallocation of rights to use radio frequencies following the merger of two undertakings))

(2015/C 107/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

Respondent: Telekom-Control-Kommission

Intervening parties: Hutchison Drei Austria Holdings GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison Drei Austria GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH and Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1) and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, may be regarded as a person ‘affected’, for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, where that undertaking, which provides electronic communications networks or services, is a competitor of the undertaking or undertakings party to a procedure for the authorisation of a transfer of rights to use radio frequencies provided for in Article 5(6) and the addressees of the decision of the national regulatory authority, and where that decision is likely to have an impact on that first undertaking’s position on the market.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Harald Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc

(Case C-375/13) (1)

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Consumer contracts - Consumer, domiciled in one Member State, having purchased securities issued by a bank in another Member State from an intermediary established in a third Member State - Jurisdiction for actions brought against the bank that issued those securities))

(2015/C 107/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harald Kolassa

Defendant: Barclays Bank plc

Operative part of the judgment

1)

Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, an applicant who, as a consumer, has acquired a bearer bond from a third party professional, without a contract having been concluded between that consumer and the issuer of the bond, which it is for the national court to verify, may not invoke jurisdiction under that provision for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer of the bond on the basis of the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and liability for the prospectus.

2)

Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, an applicant who has acquired a bearer bond from a third party, without the issuer thereof having freely assumed an obligation towards that applicant, which it is for the referring court to verify, may not invoke jurisdiction under that provision for the purposes of an action brought against the issuer and based on the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations and prospectus liability.

3)

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as applying to an action seeking to put in issue the liability of the issuer of a certificate on the basis of the prospectus relating to it and of breach of other legal information obligations binding on the issuer, in so far as that liability is not based on a matter relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the regulation. Under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, the courts where the applicant is domiciled have jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the loss occurred, to hear and determine such an action, particularly when the damage alleged occurred directly in the applicant’s bank account held with a bank established within the area of jurisdiction of those courts.

4)

In the context of the determination of international jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, it is not necessary to conduct a comprehensive taking of evidence in relation to disputed facts that are relevant both to the question of jurisdiction and to the existence of the claim. It is, however, permissible for the court seised to examine its international jurisdiction in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the allegations made by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs (C-432/13)

(Joined Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))

(2015/C 107/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vasiliki Balazs (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-432/13)

Defendants: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Attila Balazs (C-432/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement which relates to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States who had the status of political refugee in the territory of the other signatory State, which was concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and which is not listed in Annex III to that regulation does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees who were repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and the regulation entered into force.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ÖBB Personenverkehr AG v Gotthard Starjakob

(Case C-417/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Discrimination based on age - National legislation under which inclusion of periods of service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement))

(2015/C 107/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

Defendant: Gotthard Starjakob

Operative part of the judgment

1.

EU law, in particular, Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, to end discrimination based on age, takes account of periods of service prior to the age of 18, but which, simultaneously, includes a rule, applicable in reality only to employees who are subject to that discrimination, which extends by one year the period required for advancement in each of the three first salary steps and which, in so doing, definitively maintains a difference in treatment based on age;

2.

EU law, in particular Article 16 of Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which seeks to end discrimination based on age does not necessarily have to allow an employee whose periods of service completed before the age of 18 have not been taken into account in calculating his advancement to obtain financial compensation which corresponds to payment of the difference between the remuneration which he would have received in the absence of such discrimination and that which he actually received. Nevertheless, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as long as a system to abolish discrimination on grounds of age in a way that conforms with the provisions of Directive 2000/78 has not been adopted, re-establishing equal treatment entails granting employees whose experience was, if only in part, acquired before the age of 18 the same benefits as those enjoyed by employees who have obtained, after reaching that age, experience of the same type and comparable duration, as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 but also advancement in the pay scale;

3.

EU law, in particular Article 16 of Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as not preventing the national legislature from providing, in order to take into account periods of service completed before the age of 18, for an obligation of cooperation under which the employee must give his employer the evidence relating to those periods. Nevertheless, there is no abuse of law in (i) an employee’s refusal to cooperate for the purpose of the application of national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which entails discrimination based on age contrary to Directive 2000/78, and (ii) his action seeking to obtain payment intended to re-establish equal treatment with employees who have obtained, after reaching that age, experience of the same type and a duration comparable to his;

4.

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it does not preclude a national limitation period for claims which are founded in EU law from starting to run before the date of delivery of a judgment of the Court which has clarified the legal position on the matter.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright

(Case C-419/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4 - Distribution right - Exhaustion rule - Concept of ‘object’ - Transfer of the image of a protected work from a paper poster to a painter’s canvas - Replacement of the medium - Impact on exhaustion))

(2015/C 107/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Art & Allposters International BV

Defendant: Stichting Pictoright

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exhaustion of the distribution right set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 does not apply in a situation where a reproduction of a protected work, after having been marketed in the European Union with the copyright holder’s consent, has undergone an alteration of its medium, such as the transfer of that reproduction from a paper poster onto a canvas, and is placed on the market again in its new form.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

(Case C-441/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(3) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Copyright - Dematerialised content - Placing online - Determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage - Criteria))

(2015/C 107/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pez Hejduk

Defendant: EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

(Case C-463/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gambling - National rules - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences with a period of validity shorter than that of previous licences - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))

(2015/C 107/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

Intervening parties: Intralot Italia SpA, SNAI SpA, Galassia Game Srl, Eurobet Italia Srl unipersonale, Lottomatica Scommesse Srl, Sisal Match Point SpA, Cogetech Gaming Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded previously because of the reorganisation of the system by way of an alignment of licence expiry dates.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v José Hidalgo Rueda and Others (C-482/13), Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13)

(Joined Cases C-482/13, C-484/13, C-485/13 and C-487/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - Default interest clauses - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Moderation of the amount of interest - Powers of the national court))

(2015/C 107/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Unicaja Banco, SA, Caixabank SA

Defendants: José Hidalgo Rueda, María del Carmen Vega Martín, Gestión Patrimonial Hive SL, Francisco Antonio López Reina, Rosa María Hidalgo Vega (C-482/13), Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which the national court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings is required to adjust the amounts due under a term in a mortgage-loan contract providing for default interest at a rate more than three times greater than the statutory rate in order that the amount of that interest may not exceed that threshold, provided that the application of that national provision:

—	is without prejudice to the assessment by that national court of the unfairness of such a term, and

—	does not prevent that court removing that term if it were to find the latter to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

(Case C-498/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 - Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside - Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment - Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union - Status as recipient of such aid))

(2015/C 107/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

Defendants: Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

(Case C-529/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Civil service - Pension scheme - National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18))

(2015/C 107/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Felber

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the crediting of periods of school education completed by a civil servant before the age of 18 for the purpose of the grant of pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

(Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Composition - Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted - Directive 2001/83/EC - Definition of ‘medicinal product’))

(2015/C 107/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties in the main proceedings

Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors respectively must be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, cannot be categorised as a ‘scheduled substance’ as such, even if it contains a substance referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 and in the annex to Regulation No 111/2005 and can easily be used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior

(Case C-647/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Conditions governing eligibility for unemployment benefit in a Member State - Taking into account periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff of an institution of the European Union which is established in that Member State - Treatment of days of unemployment for which an allowance is paid under the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities as working days - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 107/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Office national de l’emploi

Respondent: Marie-Rose Melchior

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 EC, in conjunction with the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is interpreted as meaning that, in relation to eligibility for unemployment benefit, periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff in an institution of the European Union established in that Member State are not taken into account and days of unemployment which have given rise to payment of an unemployment allowance pursuant to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities are not treated as working days although days of unemployment for which benefit has been paid under the legislation of that Member State are so treated.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-655/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 71 - Concept of a ‘partially unemployed frontier worker’ - Refusal of the Member State of residence and of the competent Member State to grant unemployment benefit))

(2015/C 107/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Mertens

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a frontier worker who, immediately after the end of a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a Member State, is employed on a part-time basis by another employer in that same Member State has the status of a partially unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v État belge

(Case C-55/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Exemptions - Article 13B(b) - Concept of ‘exempted letting of immovable property’ - Provision, for consideration, of a football stadium - Contract for provision reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the owner - Supply, by the owner, of various services representing 80 % of the charge specified in the contract))

(2015/C 107/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the act of making available, for consideration, a football stadium under a contract reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the stadium owner and providing for the supply, by the owner, of various services, including services of maintenance, cleaning, repair and upgrading, representing 80 % of the charge which is agreed in the contact to be payable, does not constitute, as a general rule, a ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision. The finding of the facts is for the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid — Spain) — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v Jose María Ariza Toledano

(Case C-117/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - National legislation providing for an employment contract of indefinite duration with a probationary period of one year - Implementation of EU law - None - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2015/C 107/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava

Defendant: Jose María Ariza Toledano

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) by decision of 4 March 2014.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-317/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Freedom of movement for workers - Access to employment - Local public service - Linguistic knowledge - Means of proof))

(2015/C 107/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, J. Van Holm and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)

Declares that by requiring candidates for posts in the local services established in the French-speaking or German-speaking regions, whose diplomas or certificates do not show that they were educated in the language concerned, to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union;

2)	Orders the Kingdom of the Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Appeal brought on 2 July 2014 by Ms Galina Meister against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2013 in Case T-390/13 Galina Meister v European Commission

(Case C-327/14 P)

(2015/C 107/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Galina Meister (represented by: W. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 12 February 2015 and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Petru Chiş v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-585/14)

(2015/C 107/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petru Chiş

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred

1)

In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

2)

In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-586/14)

(2015/C 107/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vasile Budișan

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred

1)

In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

2)

In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Aurel Moldovan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-587/14)

(2015/C 107/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Aurel Moldovan

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred

1)

In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

2)

In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Sergiu Octav Constantinescu v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj

(Case C-588/14)

(2015/C 107/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sergiu Octav Constantinescu

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sălaj

Questions referred

1)

In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

2)

In the light of Law No 9/2012 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?

Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)

(Case C-603/14 P)

(2015/C 107/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 in its entirety;

—	order the party or parties opposing this appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.	The first ground of appeal is based on distortion of the facts, in that the General Court, in its judgment of 15 October 2014, categorised the conceptual similarity between the signs as low, whereas the Board of Appeal of OHIM took the view that there is conceptual similarity.

2.	The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 (1) was applied incorrectly.

3.	The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 was applied incorrectly.

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-609/14)

(2015/C 107/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicolae Ilie Nicula

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Intervener: Cristina Lenuța Stoica

Question referred

Are Article 110 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together with the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, affirmed in EU law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as OUG No 9/2013?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Argos Supply Trading BV

(Case C-4/15)

(2015/C 107/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party: Argos Supply Trading BV

Question referred

In an examination of the economic conditions governing an outward processing customs procedure, must the term ‘Community processors’ in Article 148(c) of the Customs Code (1) be interpreted as also covering Community producers of basic products or intermediate products identical to those processed, as non-Community goods, in the processing operation?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 —  AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

(Case C-5/15)

(2015/C 107/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AK (*1)

Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

Question referred

Must the term ‘inquiry or proceedings’ 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 also covering the objection stage before the CIZ [Netherlands Medical Care Assessment Centre], in which any person who has received a negative decision from the CIZ on a request for an assessment may lodge a notice of objection with the CIZ, requesting that the decision be reviewed?

---

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

(1)  OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 January 2015 — Cdiscount SA v Ministère public

(Case C-13/15)

(2015/C 107/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cdiscount SA

Respondent: Ministère public

Question referred

Do Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) preclude a rule which prohibits, in all circumstances and regardless of the impact they may have on the decision of the average consumer, price reductions which are not calculated against a reference price laid down by regulation?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

Appeal brought on 17 February 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 6 January 2015 in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v European Union

(Case C-71/15 P)

(2015/C 107/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kendrion NV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 6 January 2015 in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v European Union;

—	grant the form of order sought by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the CJEU’) in its application made to the General Court pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of that Court, and accordingly;

—	primarily, delivering final judgment in the case, declare Kendrion NV’s action for damages to be inadmissible on the ground that it is brought against the CJEU (as the representative of the European Union);

—

in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice should take the view that the fact that that action is brought against the CJEU and not against the Commission (as the representative of the European Union) has no bearing on its admissibility but that the General Court, in its decision on the procedural issue raised before it by the CJEU, should have ordered that the CJEU be replaced by the Commission as defendant, refer the case back to the General Court to enable it to give judgment on Kendrion’s action for damages in the light of the legal assessment of the Court of Justice;

—	order Kendrion NV to pay the costs incurred by the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By order of 6 January 2015, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the application lodged by the CJEU, pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in Case T-479/14 Kendrion v Court of Justice. The application of that institution sought, primarily, a declaration of inadmissibility in respect of Kendrion NV’s action, which had been served on the CJEU as defendant, by which that company sought to engage the non-contractual liability of the European Union in order to obtain compensation for the damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-54/06 Kendrion v Commission. In the alternative, the CJEU raised in that application a procedural issue by which it requested the General Court to order that it be replaced by the European Commission (‘Commission’) as defendant. In that context, the CJEU argued that Kendrion ought to have brought its action against the European Union, represented not by the CJEU but by the Commission. The General Court did not follow the CJEU on that point in the abovementioned order.

The CJEU now brings an appeal before the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, by which it seeks to have that order set aside. In support of that appeal, the CJEU claims that the rules on representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies have not been observed and that the obligation to state reasons has not been complied with.

In the context of the first ground of appeal, concerning non-observance of the rules on the representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies , the CJEU submits that, in view of the fact that there is no express rule governing representation of the European Union before its judicial bodies in actions brought pursuant to Article 268 TFEU with a view to engaging the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the rules governing such representation must be derived from the general principles applicable to the exercise of the judicial function, in particular the principle of the sound administration of justice and the principles relating to judicial independence and impartiality.

That first ground of appeal of the CJEU comprises two parts, that is to say, non-observance of the requirements of the principle of the sound administration of justice and non-observance of the requirements of the principles of judicial independence and impartiality.

In the context of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU submits that the General Court’s finding that it is for the CJEU to represent the European Union in the context of the abovementioned action for damages is clearly based on the case-law originating in the judgment in Werhahn Hansamühle and Others v Council and Commission (63/72 to 69/72, EU:C:1973:121; ‘Werhahn and Others’). The solution adopted in that case-law implies that, where the liability of the Community (now the European Union) is engaged by reason of the conduct of one of its institutions, it should be represented before the EU Courts by the institution or institutions against which the matter giving rise to liability is alleged. The CJEU takes the view that that solution should not be applied to the present case because it would, by reason of several factors, lead to a situation that would appear to be at variance with the interest of a sound administration of justice, which, according to the express wording of Werhahn and Others, is the rationale for that solution. In that context, the CJEU also raises, as a subsidiary argument, a lack of regard for the scope of the first paragraph of Article 317 TFEU and Article 53(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1), on the basis of which the General Court ought to have recognised the principle that compensation such as that claimed in the present case must come from that part of the EU budget which relates to the Commission.

In the context of the second part of the first ground of appeal, the CJEU, relying in this regard on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 July 2008 in Mihalkov v Bulgaria (application no 67719/01), argues that the General Court failed to take account of the requirements of judicial independence and impartiality when it ruled that the CJEU had to represent the European Union in Kendrion’s action for damages. In view of the fact that, in the present case, first, the matter allegedly giving rise to liability came about in the exercise of judicial functions by a formation of a judicial body and, secondly, the formation that will have to take cognisance of the case (i) belongs to the same judicial body (the General Court) as the formation of the judicial body being held responsible for the matter giving rise to liability and (ii) is an integral part of the defendant party in this case (the CJEU), with which the judges of that formation are professionally affiliated, the abovementioned requirements are compromised, a fortiori where, as the General Court has held, damages such as those here being claimed must come from that part of the budget which relates to the CJEU.

Accordingly, the CJEU argues in its second ground of appeal that, in the contested order, there has been a failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons , since that order contains no specific rebuttal of the argument concerning the scope of the judgment in Kendrion v Commission (C-50/12 P, EU:C:2013:771) that the CJEU had raised before the General Court.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Akhras v Council

(Case T-579/11) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to life - Right to property - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality))

(2015/C 107/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tarif Akhras (Homs, Syria) (represented by: by S. Ashley, S. Millar, S. Jeffrey, A. Irvine, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bishop, F. Naert and M.-M. Joséphidès, and subsequently by M. Bishop and M. M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: E. Paasivirta and F. Castillo de la Torre, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council 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 Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 266/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 45), 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), Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending 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, and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as those acts concern Mr Tarif Akhras;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the parties to bear their own costs in relation to these proceedings;

4.	Orders Mr Akhras to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union in relation to the interim relief proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Cheng (B)

(Case T-505/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark B - Earlier international figurative mark representing two extended wings - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 107/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Xiuxiu Cheng (Budapest, Hungary)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2012 (Case R 193/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA and Xiuxiu Cheng.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO QM)

(Case T-76/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark QUARTODIMIGLIO QM - Earlier Community and international figurative marks representing two extended wings and earlier international figurative marks LONGINES - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 107/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Staccata Srl (Como, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA and Staccata Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2015 — Husky CZ v OHIM — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

(Case T-287/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark HUSKY - Genuine use of the trade mark - Partial revocation - Extension of the time-limit - Rule 71(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Translation into the language of the proceedings))

(2015/C 107/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2013 (Case R 748/2012-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Husky CZ s.r.o. and Husky of Tostock Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Husky CZ s.r.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM — (LIFEDATA)

(Case T-318/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of specific assessment - Duty to state reasons))

(2015/C 107/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vita Phone GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1072/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark LIFEDATA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Vita Phone GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)

(Case T-453/13) (1)

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

(2015/C 107/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, 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, intervening before the General Court: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, Germany) (represented initially by: J. Schneider, and subsequently by: S. Schweyer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG and Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Horst Klaes 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);

3.	Orders Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

(Case T-531/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 107/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 992/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

(Case T-532/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 107/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 991/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

Action brought on 13 November 2014 — Infineon Technologies v Commission

(Case T-758/14)

(2015/C 107/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker, U. Soltész, P. Linsmeier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the European Commission in case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips of 3 September 2014 (notified to the applicant on 5 September 2014), in particular Article 1(a), Article 2(a), and Article 4, second paragraph;

—	in the alternative, order a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on Infineon Technologies AG pursuant to Article 2(a) of the decision; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 in case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips.

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s right to be heard, in particular by failing to adopt a new statement of objections. The applicant submits that: — the Commission failed to present the evidence in a way which would have enabled the applicant to identify the conduct complained of and to defend itself properly; — the Commission has violated Infineon’s procedural rights by introducing key pieces of evidence at a very late stage and as a result Infineon could not defend itself in a comprehensive reply to a statement of objections and was denied the opportunity to rebut the evidence used against it in an oral hearing; and — some of the documents the Commission based itself on have not been disclosed to Infineon and cannot be used against it.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the principle of good administration and Infineon’s rights of defence by applying a ‘fast track process’.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contacts by Infineon with its competitors referred to in the decision did not violate Article 101(1) TFEU. The applicant submits that: — the evidence on which the Commission relied on lacks credibility and is therefore not sufficient to establish the facts described in the decision beyond reasonable doubt (in dubio pro reo); and — the facts described by the Commission do not constitute a ‘restriction by object’ as claimed by the Commission.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error in applying the concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ (SCI) given that, first, Infineon was only liable for seven bilateral contacts (out of 41 contacts in total), secondly, it was not aware of them and finally, it could also not have reasonably foreseen the bilateral contacts between the other participants.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made manifest errors when calculating the fine by not excluding such turnover from the ‘value of sales’ (the basis for the calculation of the fine) which has clearly not been affected by the infringement.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated its own fining guidelines and the principle of proportionality, in particular by setting the ‘gravity percentage’ at the same level for all parties.

Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Media Logistik (PostModern)

(Case T-13/15)

(2015/C 107/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Media Logistik GmbH (Dresden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PostModern’ — Application No 4 276 821

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2014 in Case R 2063/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the defendant and, if applicable, the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 12 January 2015 — Philip Morris v Commission

(Case T-18/15)

(2015/C 107/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the application for annulment admissible;

—	annul the Commission’s decision Ares (2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, in so far as it refused to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception however, of the redacted personal data contained therein;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of decision Ares (2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, whereby the Commission refused to grant the applicant full access to five internal documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (1) (the ‘contested decision’).

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 4(2) second indent of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) by failing to show that full disclosure of the requested documents to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of identified ‘court proceedings’, and by failing to properly assess whether an overriding public interest could nonetheless justify full disclosure. The applicant argues that the Commission failed to show that full disclosure of the requested documents to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of identified ‘court proceedings’ because, first, the requested documents cannot benefit from the presumption of protection applicable to ‘court pleadings’, second, the Commission’s abstract reference to the equality of arms principle cannot justify extending that presumption to non-court documents, and, third, the Commission’s abstract references to pending proceedings, equality of arms, and the legal service’s ability to defend the validity of the TPD are not sufficient to show that disclosure would, on the facts, specifically and actually undermine the protection of ‘court proceedings’.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) second subparagraph of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show that full disclosure of the requested document to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine its decision-making process. The applicant submits that the Commission made vague claims about a harm allegedly caused to the cooperation between services, but failed to show any serious external pressure likely to seriously undermine the decision-making process. The Commission also committed a manifest error in assessing the overriding public interest, because it identified the wrong interest to balance with the protection of its decision-making process.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ, 2014, L 127/1.

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

Action brought on 19 January 2015 — Franmax v OHIM — Ehrmann (Dino)

(Case T-21/15)

(2015/C 107/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dino’ — Application for registration No 10 809 481

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2012/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Mabxience (HERTIXAN)

(Case T-41/15)

(2015/C 107/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HERTIXAN’ — Application for registration No 10 660 835

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2550/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

Action brought on 28 January 2015 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)

(Case T-53/15)

(2015/C 107/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: credentis AG (Windisch, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Karlslunde K/S (Karlslunde, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Curodont’ — Application for registration No 10 332 807

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2014 in Case R 353/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision;

—	Order OHIM and Aldi Karlslunde to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v OHIM (Liiga)

(Case T-54/15)

(2015/C 107/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Liiga’ — Application for registration No 12 056 792

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2014 in Case R 576/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and allow the trade mark to proceed to publication;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

—	Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Action brought on 3 February 2015 — Certified Angus Beef v OHIM — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)

(Case T-55/15)

(2015/C 107/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Certified Angus Beef, LLC (Wooster, Ohio, United States of America) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certified Australian Angus Beef Pty Ltd (Surrey Hills, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 095 394

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 662/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	uphold the Opposition in its entirety;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS)

(Case T-60/15)

(2015/C 107/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermogen Farma, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ETERN JUVENTUS’ — Application for registration No 10 862 548

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 in Case R 2414/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 in Case R 2414/2013-1 in relation to the partial granting of the trade mark application for the following services: Class 35 ‘Retailing, wholesaling and sale via global computer networks of dentifrices; sole agencies and business representation relating to dentifrices’;

—	refuse Community trade mark application No 10 862 548 ‘ETERN JUVENTUS’ for ‘Retailing, wholesaling and sale via global computer networks of dentifrices; sole agencies and business representation relating to dentifrices’ in Class 35; and

—	order OHIM, and if applicable, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 6 February 2015 — 1&1 Internet v OHIM — Unoe Bank (1e1)

(Case T-61/15)

(2015/C 107/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 1&1 Internet AG (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: G. Klopp, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unoe Bank, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘1e1’ — Application No 11 047 479

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 101/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 002090507 between 1&1 Internet AG and UNO E Bank;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-62/15)

(2015/C 107/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MITOCHRON’ — Application for registration No 11 200 078

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 in Case R 508/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Admit the complaint;

—	Annul the contested decision;

—	Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Inexistence of a risk of confusion between the trade marks involved in the dispute.

Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel stripes)

(Case T-63/15)

(2015/C 107/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (representation of two parallel stripes) — Application for registration No 10 926 764

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2560/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel slanted stripes)

(Case T-64/15)

(2015/C 107/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (representation of two parallel slanted stripes) — Application for registration No 10 984 102

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2563/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

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

Order of the General Court of 4 February 2015 — Gretsch-Unitas and Gretsch-Unitas Baubeschläge v Commission

(Case T-252/12) (1)

(2015/C 107/51)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-657/14) (1)

(2015/C 107/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

Action brought on 21 January 2015 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-6/15)

(2015/C 107/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Asenov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency terminating the applicant’s fixed-term contract before the expiry date laid down in the contract and application for damages with interest in respect of the material and non-material damage arising from the early termination of his contract.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the contested Decision No 2014/039/E of 16 April 2014, which terminates prematurely the applicant’s contract, upheld by EASA Decision No SR 14-005 of 27 October 2014;

—	Award compensation for the moral damages suffered by the applicant in the form of humiliation, insult, broken reputation and deteriorating health, caused by the decision. The applicant’s estimation of these moral damages is EUR 100 000;

—

Award compensation for the material damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the early termination of his contract. They are equal to the difference between the applicant’s full salary and the compensation under Article 47(b)(ii) CEOS for the period between the early termination of the applicant’s contract and the day of its re-establishment or the date when the contract expires at 1 November 2015. The estimation of the difference amounts to around EUR 75 000, but more precise calculations can be made by the EASA accountant’s office;

—	Restore the normal execution of the applicant’s contract and the applicant’s professional relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency;

—

As to evidence: — one witness to be summoned for the oral part of the proceedings in order to testify about the applicant’s reputation amongst the civil aviation community before the illegal suspension. — one witness to be summoned for the oral part of the proceedings in order to testify about the applicant’s mental and health state during and after the illegal suspension and termination of his contract. — EASA to be ordered to submit the list of its sensitive posts.

—	As to costs, the defendant to be ordered to bear its own judicial costs incurred as well as those of the applicant, including the costs of the lawyer representing the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal, witnesses’ costs and any other costs incurred in relation to the proceedings.