1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/2

Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Constantinos Mallis and Elli Constaninou Malli against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-327/13 Mallis and Malli v Commission and European Central Bank

(Case C-105/15 P)

(2015/C 178/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Constantinos Mallis and Elli Constaninou Malli (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

—

set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellants, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

—	set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

—	set aside the order that the appellants should pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants rely on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

1.	The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

2.	The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law.

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellants’ arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

4.	In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellants should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/3

Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-328/13 Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and European Central Bank

(Case C-106/15 P)

(2015/C 178/03)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Liasidou and K. Efstathiou, dikigori)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

—

set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellant, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

—	set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

—	set aside the order that the appellant should pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

1.	The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

2.	The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

4.	In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellant should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/4

Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-329/13 Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma v Commission and European Central Bank

(Case C-107/15 P)

(2015/C 178/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

—

—	set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

—	set aside the order that the appellants should pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants rely on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

1.	The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

2.	The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellants’ arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

4.	In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellants should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/5

Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Lella Khatziioannou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-330/13 Lella Khatziioannou v Commission and European Central Bank

(Case C-108/15 P)

(2015/C 178/05)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Lella Khatziioannou (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

—

set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellant, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

—	set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

—	set aside the order that the appellant should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

—	The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

—	The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

—

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

—	In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellant should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/6

Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Marinos Nikolaou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-331/13 Marinos Nikolaou v Commission and European Central Bank

(Case C-109/15 P)

(2015/C 178/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Marinos Nikolaou (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

—

set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellant, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

—	set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

—	set aside the order that the appellant should pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

—	The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

—	The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

—

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

—	In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellant should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC) and Others

(Case C-110/15)

(2015/C 178/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Nokia Italia SpA, Hewlett-Packard Italiana srl, Telecom Italia SpA, Samsung Electronics Italia SpA, Dell SpA, Fastweb SpA, Sony Mobile Communications Italy SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Respondents: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC), Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE), Istituto per la tutela dei diritti degli artisti interpreti esecutori (IMAIE), in liquidazione, Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali (Anica), Associazione produttori televisivi (Apt)

Questions referred

Does Community law, and in particular recital 31 in the preamble to, and Article 5(2)(b) of, Directive 2001/29/EC (1), preclude national rules (in particular, Article 71-sexies of the Italian Legge sul Diritto d’autore (Law on copyright), in conjunction with Article 4 of the [Decree of] 30 December 2009) that provide that, in the case of media and devices acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying (that is to say, for professional use only), determination of the criteria for ‘ex ante’ exemption from the levy is left to private negotiation, or ‘free bargaining’, with particular regard to the ‘application protocols’ referred to in Article 4 above, failing any general provisions and any guarantee of equal treatment between the SIAE and persons obliged to pay the compensation, or their trade or professional associations?

Does Community law, and in particular recital 31 in the preamble to, and Article 5(2)(b) of, Directive 2001/29/EC, preclude national rules (in particular Article 71-sexies of the Italian Law on copyright, in conjunction with the [Decree of] 30 December 2009, and the instructions on reimbursement given by the SIAE, that provide that, in the case of media and devices acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying (that is to say, for professional use only), reimbursement may be requested only by the final user rather than the producer of the media and devices?

(1) 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 (OJ L 167, p. 10).

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, GDF Suez

(Case C-121/15)

(2015/C 178/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, GDF Suez

Questions referred

Must the intervention of a Member State consisting in requiring the incumbent supplier to offer to supply final consumers with natural gas at regulated tariffs, but which does not preclude competing offers from being made at prices lower than those tariffs by the incumbent supplier or alternative suppliers, be regarded as leading to a situation whereby price levels for the supply of natural gas to final consumers are determined independently of free market forces and as constituting, by its very nature, an obstacle to the achievement of a competitive market in natural gas, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1)?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to assess the compatibility with Directive 2009/73/EC of such State intervention in the price of the supply of natural gas to final consumers?

In particular:

(a)

To what extent and under what conditions does Article 106(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC, enable Member States to pursue, by intervening in prices for the supply of natural gas to consumers, objectives other than maintaining the price of supply at a reasonable level, such as ensuring secure supply and territorial cohesion?

(b)

In the light of the objectives of secure supply and territorial cohesion, does Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC permit a Member State to intervene in determining the price of the supply of natural gas on the basis of the principle that the incumbent supplier’s costs be covered in full, and may the costs intended to be covered by the tariffs include components other than the portion representing long-term supply?

(1) Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-124/15)

(2015/C 178/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1777/2001 of 7 September 2001 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that are used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 3 tablets (= 1 500 mg) are to be classified under subheading 3004 9000?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2001 L 240, p. 4.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2015 — H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others, other parties: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb) and Others

(Case C-133/15)

(2015/C 178/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: H.C. Chavez-Vilchez, P. Pinas, U. Nikolic, X.V. Garcia Perez, J. Uwituze, Y.R.L. Wip, I.O. Enowassam, A.E. Guerrero Chavez,

Other parties: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb), College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Arnhem, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente’s-Gravenhage, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente’s-Hertogenbosch, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Amsterdam, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Rijswijk, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Rotterdam.

Questions referred

1.	Must Article 20 of the TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State from depriving a third-country national who is responsible for the day to day and primary care of his/her minor child, who is a national of that Member State, of the right of residence in that Member State?

In answering that question, is it relevant that the legal, financial and/or emotional burden does not rest entirely with that parent and, furthermore, that it cannot be excluded that the other parent, who is a national of the Member State, might in fact be able to care for the child? In that case, should the parent/third-country national have to make a plausible case that the other parent is not able to assume responsibility for the care of the child, so that the child would be obliged to leave the territory of the European Union if the parent/third-country national is denied a right of residence?

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2015 — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava

(Case C-137/15)

(2015/C 178/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: María Pilar Plaza Bravo

Respondent: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava

Question referred

Is it contrary to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (‘the Directive’), in circumstances such as those of this case, for national legislation under which, in order for the amount of the benefit for total unemployment to be received by an employee following the loss of her only part-time employment to be calculated, a reduction coefficient for part-time work that corresponds to the percentage represented by the part-time working hours in relation to the hours completed by a comparable worker employed full-time is applied to the maximum amount [of unemployment benefit] generally laid down by law, regard being had to the fact that in that Member State the vast majority of part-time workers are women?

(1) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/11

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Ayadi v Commission

(Case T-527/09 RENV) (1)

((Referral back after setting aside - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body - Inclusion of the name of that person in the list contained in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Fundamental rights - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to respect for property))

(2015/C 178/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H. Miller, Solicitor, P. Moser, QC, E. Grieves, Barrister, and R. Graham, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta, T. Scharf and M. Konstantidinis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by E. Creedon, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Travers, SC) and Council of the European Union (represented by E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20), in so far as that act concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, in so far as that measure concerns Mr Chafiq Ayadi.

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay both the costs incurred by Mr Ayadi and the sums advanced by the General Court by way of legal aid.

3.	Orders Ireland and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/12

Order of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Conte and Others v Council

(Case T-121/10) (1)

((Action for annulment - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Introduction of a Community system of control, inspection and enforcement - Concept of regulatory act - Concept of legislative act - Not individually affected))

(2015/C 178/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Giovanni Conte (Pomezia, Italy); Casa del Pescatore Soc. coop. rl, Civitanova Marche (Italy); Guidotti Giovanni & Figli Snc (Termoli, Italy); Organizzazione di produttori della pesca di Civitanova Marche Soc. coop. rl (Civitanova Marche); Consorzio gestione mercato ittico Manfredonia Soc. coop. rl (Cogemim) (Manfredonia, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavascola, G. Micucci and V. Cannizzaro, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and S. Barbagallo, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1) and more particularly, Articles 9, 10, 14(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), 15, 17(1), 58(1), (2), (3) and (5), 59(2) and (3), 60(4) and (5), 62(1), 63(1), 64, 65, 66(1) and (3), 67(1), 68, 73(8), 92(2) and 103 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

Giovanni Conte; Casa del Pescatore Soc. coop. rl, Civitanova Marche; Guidotti Giovanni & Figli Snc; Organizzazione di produttori della pesca di Civitanova Marche Soc. coop. rl and Consorzio gestione mercato ittico Manfredonia Soc. coop. rl (Cogemim) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/12

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2015 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)

(Case T-213/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 178/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Fransisco, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, 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 intervening before the General Court: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (Tarbes, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte and R. Zeineh, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 775/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne and Square, Inc.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The applicant shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/13

Action brought on 1 March 2015 — Ryanair et Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-111/15)

(2015/C 178/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul Articles 1(2), 2(4), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2014 concerning the state aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Angoulême, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants access to the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the Airport Service Agreement and the Marketing Services Agreement to the French state.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission failed to properly apply the ‘market economy investor’ test.

The applicant puts forward that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission used manifestly insufficient, unverified and unreliable data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair, failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, and dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFUE in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of Angoulême airport instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, the Commission failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through Angoulême airport’s (supposedly) below-cost payment flows. Finally, the Commission failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the payment of the aid.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/14

Action brought on 5 March 2015 — Deza v ECHA

(Case T-115/15)

(2015/C 178/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

—	annul Decision ED/108/2014 of 12 December 2014 of the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency updating and supplementing the existing entry for the substance DEHP in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1);

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is ultra vires

The applicant claims that the contested decision is ultra vires because (i) the defendant was not entitled under Regulation No 1907/2006 to update, by that decision, the list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV within the meaning of Article 59(1) of that regulation, (ii) the adoption of the contested decision was preceded by a procedure of the defendant that was contrary to Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006, and (iii) the contested decision and the procedure of the defendant leading up to its adoption circumvent the procedure laid down for that purpose by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty

The applicant claims that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty because (i) the decision identifies bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) as a substance disrupting endocrinal activity where EU law does not lay down a definition of such a substance or criteria for its identification and where that definition or those criteria are drawn up by the European Commission on the basis of regulations and decisions of the Council and the Parliament, and (ii) that decision was adopted at a time when the procedure was still ongoing, albeit at an advanced stage, for authorisation of the substance DEHP identified as a substance toxic for reproduction under Article 57(c) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is not founded on convincing and objective scientific findings

The applicant claims that the contested decision is unlawful because it is not founded on convincing and objective scientific findings showing that DEHP satisfies all the criteria laid down in Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The applicant submits that the contested decision and the procedure of the defendant leading up to its adoption infringe its rights and the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the principle of legal certainty, the right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing an European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/15

Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Fortischem v Commission

(Case T-121/15)

(2015/C 178/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;

—	award the applicant the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFUE

It is submitted that the Commission’s decision that declaring the company Novácke chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze (‘NCHZ’) a strategic company within the meaning of the Slovak Law of 5 November 2009 on certain strategic measures regarding strategically important companies in bankruptcy (‘the Law’) constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFUE is in breach of that Article, since not all of its constituent elements are fulfilled.

The applicant puts forward that the declaration did not cause a transfer of State resources, since there was no additional burden for the State compared to the situation that would have arisen had the usual insolvency rules been applied. Nor did it confer an economic advantage to NCHZ, since, first, creditors would have opted for continued operation in any way, and the temporary prohibition of lay-offs was only in favour of the State, not of the company. Second, the application of the Law passes the Market Economy Operator Test, since it was economically advantageous for the public creditors.

Finally, the applicant submits that even if the Commission were right and the application of the Law were to be considered State Aid in favour of NCHZ, the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment when calculating the amount of State aid.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination

The applicant puts forward that the Commission had the duty, on the one hand, to inform the Slovak Government about the fact that it considered the level of detail of the ex-post-analysis submitted by the latter to be insufficient and, on the other hand, to indicate what additional information or clarification the Slovak Government had to provide. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to request information on final figures before taking a recovery decision.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296(2) TFUE and the obligation to state reasons

The applicant submits that the Commission failed to provide any reasoning as to why in this specific case NCHZ would not have continued operating without the application of the Law as well as to address the Slovak Government’s arguments as to the economic interests of the public creditors in continued operation.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFUE and Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation by extending the recovery aid to the Applicant

The applicant puts forward that there was no State aid in its favour, since the sales price was at market rate. According to the applicant, the Commission’s argumentation and doubts as to whether the prices paid by Via Chem and subsequently by Fortishem for the NCHZ assets represented market prices is flawed for several reasons. It is submitted that first, as the burden of proof lies with the Commission, it is not sufficient for the Commission to express doubts. Second, since the sale was conducted within the scope of a bankruptcy procedure under the control of a bankruptcy court with the obligation to act in the interests of the creditors of the insolvent company, there is an assumption that the assets were sold at the highest price possible. Third, the tender procedure was open, transparent and unconditional and therefore guaranteed the highest price achievable on the market; the commitment option did not have any impact on sales price. Fourth, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions of the sale between Via Chem and Fortischem are not of any relevance due to the market price of the first sale, the sales price negotiated between private market economy operators is assumed to be a market price even without a tender procedure.

The applicant further puts forward that it is obvious that the transfer of the NCHZ assets to Via Chem and later to the applicant cannot be considered an attempt to circumvent the Commission’s recovery decision for two reasons. First, the case is so far from the typical circumvention case that even the Commission admits that it has no evidence of the intention to evade recovery. Second, it nevertheless comes to the conclusion that there is economic continuity, so that it can extend the recovery to the applicant. However, the Commission’ conclusion follows a flawed analysis based on an incorrect interpretation of the individual criteria, a disregard for the burden of proof and a false understanding of the overall concept of economic continuity in State aid cases.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission’s approach is economically destructive and unnecessary from a competition law perspective. According to the applicant, the Commission is trying to create new, much stricter case law, according to which the scope of the transaction shall be the decisive criterion, the sales price being at most an auxiliary criterion, if at all.

5.	Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, infringement of Articles 107(1), 108(2) TFUE and Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation by not limiting the extension of the Recovery Decision to 60 % of the alleged State aid

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 296 TFUE by giving inadequate reasons with respect to the economic continuity

The applicant puts forward that it follows from the observations made with respect to the first plea that he Commission’s reasoning is insufficient to enable the Court to conduct a judicial review of the contested decision, and that it is not possible for the applicant to understand the reasons that led the Commission to conclude on economic continuity.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/17

Action brought on 12 March 2015 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg v ECB

(Case T-122/15)

(2015/C 178/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: A. Glos, K. Lackhoff and M. Benzing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the ECB of 5 January 2015 (ECB/SSM/15/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/3), by ordering the effects of the substituted decision of the ECB of 1 September 2014 (ECB/SSM/14/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/1) to be maintained;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB applied an inappropriate criterion for the assessment of particular circumstances

—

The applicant asserts that the ECB based its decision as to whether, despite satisfying the size criterion, the applicant was to be classified as a less significant entity on grounds of particular circumstances under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) read in conjunction with Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) on four different and mutually irreconcilable assessment criteria. Each of those criteria was in itself erroneous.

—

The applicant further asserts that for the existence of particular circumstances under Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014 it is decisive that there were ‘specific and factual circumstances’ that made the classification of an entity as significant, and thereby necessarily subject to the ECB’s central supervision, ‘inappropriate’. According to the applicant, the classification of an entity as significant merely on the basis of its size was ‘inappropriate’, within the meaning of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014, where such a classification was not necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013. Supervision by the competent national authorities with macroprudential supervision by the ECB would have sufficed.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the assessment of the facts of the case

—

The applicant asserts that the ECB erred (i) since in view of the submissions made by the applicant at the hearing and in the proceedings before the Administrative Board of Review the classification of the applicant as a significant entity was not in any way necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013 and (ii) because the classification of the applicant as a less significant entity was also inconsistent with the basic principles of that regulation. The ECB’s decision that particular circumstances did not exist was a manifest error.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons

—	The applicant asserts that the reasons for the contested decision were illogical and contradictory. The ECB relied on a total of four assessment criteria which bore no relation to one another and were mutually irreconcilable.

—	The principal grounds for the contested decision cannot be extrapolated from the contested decision. On the contrary, the ECB’s line of argumentation consisted in mere assertions and negations.

—

Furthermore, the decision erroneously failed to take into consideration the applicant’s submissions in the administrative proceedings. In particular, the ECB did not explain why the factual and legal arguments presented by the applicant were not sufficient to rebut the presumption laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an ultra vires misuse of powers by failing to exercise discretion

—	The applicant claims that the ECB breached its obligation in each individual case to exercise the discretion provided for in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 70 of Regulation No 468/2014. The ECB thereby misused its powers.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to assess and take into consideration all of the relevant circumstances of each individual case

—

The applicant asserts that, in exercising the margin of discretion bestowed upon it, the ECB breached its duty to assess and take into consideration diligently and impartially all of the relevant facts and points of law of the case at issue. In particular, the ECB failed to evaluate all of the facts and points of law invoked by the applicant.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/19

Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-143/15)

(2015/C 178/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul in part the Commission’s implementing decision of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes:

1.	aid received by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the Comunidad de Andalucía totalling EUR 3 5 86 250,48 plus EUR 1 8 66 977,31 (decoupled direct aid) in financial years 2009 and 2010,

expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the Comunidad de Castilla y León amounting to EUR 2 1 23 619,66 (EUR 1 479,90 euros + EUR 9 78 849,95 + EUR 12 597,37 + EUR 1 720,85 + EUR 1 0 96 710,18 + EUR 32 261,41) in respect of ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in financial years 2010 and 2011; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Spain claims that the contested decision should be annulled on the following grounds:

The imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 5 4 53 227,79 (decoupled direct aids) is contrary to Article 27(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Articles 3 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, for two reasons:

—

The Commission misinterpreted Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, given that the fact that the results of the random samples carried out in 2008 and 2009 were not as good as the results of the risk sample does not constitute an infringement of that article and, accordingly, does not constitute an infringement of EU law which excludes financing of agricultural expenditure under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.

—

The Commission could not reasonably conclude that Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 had been infringed given that the evidence adduced by the Kingdom of Spain during the verification procedure established that an adequate analysis had been carried out and appropriate measures had been taken to improve risk-based selection. Accordingly, there has not been an infringement of EU law which excludes financing of agricultural expenditure under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.

The imposition of a correction in the amount of EUR 2 1 23 619,66 (‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’) should be annulled for the following reasons:

—

It infringes Articles 10(2), 10(4) and 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 in so far as the Commission found that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground, since it had failed to carry out animal counts during on-the-spot checks in respect of aid pertaining to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’. This plea in law is divided into two parts, by which the Kingdom of Spain submits that:

a)	the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot checks in respect of the aid for the rural development programme of Castilla y León 2007-2013 breaches the principle of the continuity of the livestock density criterion and the principle of equal treatment, and

b)	the Commission wrongly interpreted Articles 10(2) and 10(4), read in conjunction with Article 14(2), of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 by finding that the Spanish system was not appropriate for verifying compliance with the livestock density criterion.

—	It infringes Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, to the extent that the Kingdom of Spain has databases of cattle, sheep and goats which are reliable and continually updated in accordance with requirements.

—

It infringes Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in so far as it is manifestly disproportionate to impose a financial correction of 5 % in respect of the measures concerned by the investigation. The financial correction is disproportionate as, even if the infringement attributed to the Spanish authorities were to be confirmed, the contested decision goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary to protect the financial interests of the Union.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/20

Action brought on 29 March 2015 — Romania v European Commission

(Case T-145/15)

(2015/C 178/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: R. Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, D. Bulancea, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging incorrect exercise of the European Commission’s power to exclude amounts from European Union financing

—

By applying the flat rate corrections set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103, the Commission infringed Article 52 of Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 and the Commission Guidelines for applying financial corrections set out in Commission Document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 entitled ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearing of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section’.

—

The Commission was required to establish the corrections by identifying amounts unduly spent by Romania, and not to apply flat rate corrections bearing in mind that the nature of the situation did not require this and that the Romanian State had made the necessary information available to the Commission to calculate the corrections. In those circumstances it cannot be considered that a disproportionate effort was required on the part of the Commission, in order to calculate the corrections based on actual loss of funds.

Second plea in law, alleging insufficient and inadequate reasons for the contested decision

—

Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 was not supported by sufficient reasons since when adopting that decision, the Commission did not give sufficient reasons for choosing to apply a flat rate calculation to the irregularities found in the audits, and has failed adequately to justify why the arguments raised by Romania regarding the possibility of applying of a calculated correction cannot be accepted and taken into consideration in establishing the final adjustment.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

—

The contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality in so far as application of a flat rate correction of 10 % regarding the expenditure for the 2009 claim year and 5 % for the 2010 claim year gives rise to an overestimate of losses to EU funds resulting from the irregularities found in the audits, the rates mentioned not taking into account the nature and the seriousness of the infringements or the financial implications for the EU Budget.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/21

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission

(Case T-158/15)

(2015/C 178/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abertis Infraestructuras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Abertis Telecom Satélites, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, M. Maragall de Gispert, M. Santa María Fernández, J. Panero Rivas, and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—	admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

—	annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

—	annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

—	annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

—	in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-826/14 Spain v Commission and T-12/15 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission.

The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/22

Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

(Case T-163/15)

(2015/C 178/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Delta Group agroalimentare Srl (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: V. Migliorini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare null and void and, at all events, annul letter Ref. Ares (2015) 528512, of 9 February 2015, from Jerzy Plewa, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development at the European Commission, addressed to Mr Scabin, the applicant’s authorised representative, received on the same date, rejecting the applicant’s request of 13 January 2015 that the Commission take measures pursuant to either Article 219(1) or Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, and, in particular, fix the export refunds pursuant to Article 196 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the poultrymeat sector.

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 219(1) and Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s statement that the trade statistics for the first 11 months of 2014 show a 5 % increase in exports compared to the same period in 2013 is contradicted by the right-hand column of the table found on page 19 of the same report on the market situation for poultrymeat of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets of 22 January 2015, cited by the Commission, which showed that in the first 11 months of 2013, European Union exports of poultrymeat came to EUR 1 93 6 0 00 000, while in the first 11 months of 2014 those exports came to only EUR 1 88 6 8 38 000, amounting to a 2,5 % decline and not a 5 % increase, and that the Commission also erred in its assessment of prices, which it defined as ‘stable’, even though they represent a severe decrease of approximately 8 %, as page 9 of the report shows and therefore constitutes a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 219(1) and Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, and in particular, of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s decision to reject the request for measures to be taken pursuant to Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 has been taken without the advice of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, thereby breaching an essential procedural requirement set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, applicable by virtue of the reference made in Article 229 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which, in turn, is referred to in Article 221 of the latter regulation.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/23

Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)

(Case T-167/15)

(2015/C 178/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. (Veitsbronn, Deutschland) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Appeal Board: Freistaat Bayern (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 28/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare the sign ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’ — Community trade mark No 10 144 392 — invalid;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

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

—	Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/25

Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v EESC

(Case F-33/15)

(2015/C 178/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, N. de Montigny and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the implied decision of the Appointing Authority to not take measures for compliance with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2013 in Case F-124/10 Labiri v EESC and the claim for damages for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the implied rejection decision of 20 February 2015 opposing the applicant’s complaint directed against the wrongful failure of the Appointing Authority to take the measures for compliance with the judgment of 26 February 2013 in Case F-124/10;

—

Order the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to pay the applicant, as non-pecuniary damages, the sum of EUR 50,00 per day from 14 December 2007 until the date that the assistance measures described in the letter of 27 May 2010 from the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions are implemented and EUR 100,00 per day as of 26 February 2013 until the date of the adoption of measures to comply with the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment;

—	Order the EESC to pay the applicant default interest on those amounts from 20 October 2014 until the date of actual payment at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations plus two percentage points;

—	Order the EESC to pay the costs.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/25

Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-34/15)

(2015/C 178/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of 14 April 2014 of the High Representative of the European Union, Vice-President of the European Commission, to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS);

—	Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/26

Action brought on 6 March 2015 — FJ v Parliament

(Case F-38/15)

(2015/C 178/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FJ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to cover certain non-medical costs incurred for the applicant’s son.

Form of order sought

—	Declare that the appointing authority’s decision of 18 June 2014 not to cover certain non-medical expenses which are not reimbursed by the JSIS, resulting from the disability of the applicant’s son, is unlawful;

—	in the alternative, order the appointment of an expert in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure in order to determine the rate of incapacity resulting from the disability;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/27

Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-39/15)

(2015/C 178/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights in the EU’s pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited which were acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

—	Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/28

Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ and Others v CEPOL

(Case F-41/15)

(2015/C 178/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others

Defendant: European Police College (CEPOL)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the European Police College (CEPOL) leading the applicants either to resign from their posts at CEPOL or to move from London to Budapest at a financial loss, and application for damages for material and non-material harm allegedly caused thereby.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of CEPOL No 17/2014/DIR dated 23 May 2014, providing for the relocation of CEPOL in Budapest, Hungary, as from 1 October 2014 and informing the applicants that ‘Non-compliance with this instruction will be considered as resignation with the effect of 30 September 2014’;

—	annul, also, and so far as necessary, CEPOL’s decisions dated 28 November 2014, rejecting the applicants’ complaints lodged between 8 and 21 August 2014 against the aforementioned decision;

—	annul also, and so far as necessary, CEPOL’s decisions of 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL ‘accepted’ the resignation of two of the applicants;

—	compensate the material prejudice suffered by the applicants;

—	compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the applicants;

—	order CEPOL to pay all the costs incurred by the applicants for the present appeal.

1.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/28

Action brought on 10 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-42/15)

(2015/C 178/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the salary statement of May 2014, in so far as it applies Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, itself unlawful since it does not provide for a weighting of the remuneration of officials who work in Luxembourg, where the cost of living is appreciably higher than in Brussels.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision fixing his pay for May 2014, in so far as it does not provide for him to benefit from any weighting;

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

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 178

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 58 1 June 2015

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2015/C 178/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2015/C 178/02	Case C-105/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Constantinos Mallis and Elli Constaninou Malli against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-327/13 Mallis and Malli v Commission and European Central Bank	2
2015/C 178/03	Case C-106/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-328/13 Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and European Central Bank	3
2015/C 178/04	Case C-107/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-329/13 Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma v Commission and European Central Bank	4
2015/C 178/05	Case C-108/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Lella Khatziioannou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-330/13 Lella Khatziioannou v Commission and European Central Bank	5
2015/C 178/06	Case C-109/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Marinos Nikolaou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-331/13 Marinos Nikolaou v Commission and European Central Bank	6
2015/C 178/07	Case C-110/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MiBAC) and Others	7
2015/C 178/08	Case C-121/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, GDF Suez	8
2015/C 178/09	Case C-124/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover	9
2015/C 178/10	Case C-133/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2015 — H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others, other parties: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb) and Others	9
2015/C 178/11	Case C-137/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2015 — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava	10
	General Court
2015/C 178/12	Case T-527/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Ayadi v Commission (Referral back after setting aside — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body — Inclusion of the name of that person in the list contained in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Fundamental rights — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to respect for property)	11
2015/C 178/13	Case T-121/10: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Conte and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Introduction of a Community system of control, inspection and enforcement — Concept of regulatory act — Concept of legislative act — Not individually affected)	12
2015/C 178/14	Case T-213/13: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2015 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)	12
2015/C 178/15	Case T-111/15: Action brought on 1 March 2015 — Ryanair et Airport Marketing Services v Commission	13
2015/C 178/16	Case T-115/15: Action brought on 5 March 2015 — Deza v ECHA	14
2015/C 178/17	Case T-121/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Fortischem v Commission	15
2015/C 178/18	Case T-122/15: Action brought on 12 March 2015 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg v ECB	17
2015/C 178/19	Case T-143/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Spain v Commission	19
2015/C 178/20	Case T-145/15: Action brought on 29 March 2015 — Romania v European Commission	20
2015/C 178/21	Case T-158/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission	21
2015/C 178/22	Case T-163/15: Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission	22
2015/C 178/23	Case T-167/15: Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)	23
2015/C 178/24	Case T-256/12: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Hautau v Commission	24
	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2015/C 178/25	Case F-33/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v EESC	25
2015/C 178/26	Case F-34/15: Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS	25
2015/C 178/27	Case F-37/15: Action brought on 3 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	26
2015/C 178/28	Case F-38/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — FJ v Parliament	26
2015/C 178/29	Case F-39/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	27
2015/C 178/30	Case F-40/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Council	27
2015/C 178/31	Case F-41/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ and Others v CEPOL	28
2015/C 178/32	Case F-42/15: Action brought on 10 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	28
2015/C 178/33	Case F-43/15: Action brought on 13 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	29