8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 March 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited

(Case C-130/15)

(2015/C 190/02)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant: National Exhibition Centre Limited

Questions referred

With regard to the exemption from VAT in Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (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) (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-2/95 Sparekassernes Datacenter v Skatteministeriet (ECLI:EU:C: 1997:278; [1997] ECR I-3017), what are the relevant principles to be applied for determining whether or not a service has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entail[s] changes in the legal and financial situation’ within the meaning of paragraph 66 of that judgment? In particular:

1.1.

Is the exemption applicable to a service, such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case, which does not involve the taxpayer debiting or crediting any accounts over which it has control, but which is, where a transfer of funds results, the cause of a transfer of funds made by an independent financial institution?

1.2.	In a case where payment is made by credit or debit card, does the answer to Question 1.1 depend on whether the service provider itself obtains authorisation codes directly from the cardholder's bank, or alternatively obtains those codes via its merchant acquirer bank?

1.3.

What factors distinguish (a) a service which consists in the provision of financial information without which a payment would not be made but which does not fall within the exemption (such as in Case C-350/10 Nordea Pankki Suomi (ECLI:EU:C:2011:532; [2011] ECR I-7359), from (b) a data handling service which functionally has the effect of transferring funds and which the Court of Justice has identified as therefore being capable of falling within the exemption (such as in SDC at paragraph 66)?

What are the relevant principles to be applied for determining whether or not a service such as that performed by the taxpayer in the present case falls within the scope of the ‘debt collection’ exclusion from the exemption in Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive? In particular, if a service of processing payment by a particular method (e.g. debit or credit card) would, pursuant to the principles in Case C-175/09 Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v AXA UK plc (ECLI:EU:C:2010:646; [2010] ECR I-10701), constitute ‘debt collection’ in circumstances where the supply of that service was to the person to whom that payment was due (i.e. the person receiving the payment), will that service also constitute ‘debt collection’' in circumstances where the supply of that service is to the person from whom the payment is due (i.e. the person making the payment)? Further, in the circumstances of this case, does a ‘debt’ even exist to be ‘collected’?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/3

Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)

(Case C-138/15 P)

(2015/C 190/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: G. Morgan, Solicitor, K. Bacon, Barrister and E.S. Mackenzie, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

—	Annul the decision of the EMA, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the appellant’s application for a marketing authorization;

—	Order the EMA to pay the costs of the Appellants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants advance one ground of appeal, which is that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1). Three distinct errors of law are alleged. First, it is alleged that the General Court misinterpreted Article 8(3) read together with Article 8(1), in that it failed to appreciate that a second similar orphan product authorised under an Article 8(3) derogation cannot attract the reward of market exclusivity that is provided for the first orphan product under Article 8(1).

Second, it erred in concluding that its interpretation of Article 8 does not have the effect of extending the market exclusively attaching to the first product.

Third, the General Court incorrectly described and thus failed properly to address the appellant’s alternative case in respect of the original ground for annulment, which was that even if the second product did in principle benefit from its own period of market exclusivity, that exclusivity should not operate to exclude from the market a generic version of the first product.

The appellant requests that the Court of Justice give final judgment annulling the contested decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 25 March 2015 — Doux SA, Maître Sophie Gautier, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA, SCP Valliot-Le Guenevé-Abittbol, in the person of Maître Valliot, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-141/15)

(2015/C 190/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Doux SA, Maître Sophie Gautier, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA, SCP Valliot-Le Guenevé-Abittbol, in the person of Maître Valliot, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA

Defendant: Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Questions referred

Does compliance with the water-content threshold laid down by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 (1), in conjunction with Annexes VI and VII thereto, constitute a requirement of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ within the meaning of Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 (2) and of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Nowaco Germany (C-353/04, EU:C:2006:522)?

Can frozen poultry with a water content exceeding the threshold laid down by Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, in conjunction with Annexes VI and VII thereto, accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority, be marketed within the European Union in normal conditions, within the meaning of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 612/2009, and, if so, in what conditions?

Is the fact that the water-content threshold remains at 5,1 % under Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, and has not been revised for several decades, despite alleged changes in rearing practices and criticism in certain scientific studies that that threshold is obsolete, compatible or incompatible with EU law, and in particular with the principle of legal certainty?

Are Annexes VI and VII to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 sufficiently precise for the checks provided for by Article 15 of that regulation to be carried out, or was France under an obligation to lay down ‘practical measures for the checks’‘at all stages of marketing’, failing which checks carried out at the stage of exportation of the goods cannot be relied upon?

Can the requests for counter-analyses which are provided for by Article 16(2) and (5) of Regulation No 543/2008 in respect of the results of slaughterhouse checks be extended to checks carried out at the stage of marketing of export products, in the presence of the parties, pursuant to, inter alia, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat (OJ 2008 L 157, p. 46).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 2009 L 186, p. 1).

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/5

Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission

(Case C-142/15 P)

(2015/C 190/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission,

Brandoni solare SpA,

Global Sun Ltd,

Silicio Solar, SAU,

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

—	Set aside the General Court’s Order in Case T-507/13;

—	Declare the Application for annulment in Case T-507/13 admissible; and

—	Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:

The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly concerned by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (1) because that Decision would not directly affect the legal situation of the Appellant and was subject to implementing measures.

—

The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly affected by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU because it was implemented by Regulation 748/2013 (2). Regulation 748/2013 is a confirmatory act in relation to Decision 2013/423/EU. The Appellant had therefore standing to appeal Decision 2013/423/EU directly.

—

The General Court’s finding that the Decision 2013/423/EU entails implementing measures was erroneous as the General Court did not analyse whether the Commission had any discretion when adopting Regulation 748/2013 or whether the implementation of Decision 2013/423/EU was merely automatic with regard to the Appellant, which in fact was the case.

(1) Commission Decision of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 209, p. 26.

(2) Commission Regulation of 2 August 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 209, p. 1.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/6

Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union

(Case C-153/15 P)

(2015/C 190/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey, Advocaat, D. Rovetta, avocat, M. Gambardella, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—	Set aside the order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13, Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union, and declare the action for annulment to be admissible;

—	Refer the case back to the General Court;

—	Order the Council to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits two grounds of challenge, whereby the General Court has based the contested order on manifest errors of assessment and errors in law.

The Appellant finds that the General Court has committed manifest errors of assessment by holding first that a complete individual notification took place on 19 October 2012, and second that this notification occurred prior to the publication of a general notice of notification in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 October 2012.

Further, the Appellant finds that the General Court committed errors in law firstly by failing to take into account the requirement that a notification must include a statement of reasons, secondly by holding that an individual notification could have the effect of shortening the time limit for a judicial challenge to a legal act of the Europrean Union, thirdly by disregarding the legal consequences of the choices made by the Council in relation to the notification procedure, and fourthly by failing to take into account the legitimate understanding of the law at the time of the Application.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Planet v Commission

(Case T-320/09) (1)

((Protection of the financial interests of the Union - Early warning system (EWS) enabling identification of the level of risk associated with contractors - OLAF enquiry into the performance of a public contract concerning an institutional modernisation project in Syria - Decisions to activate W1a and W1b warnings - Legal basis - Fundamental rights - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 190/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the applicant’s registration in the early warning system (‘EWS’), by activation initially of a W1a warning and subsequently of a W1b warning.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requesting the registration of Planet AE Anonymi Etairia Parochis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion in the early warning system (EWS), and those of the European Commission concerning the activation of a W1a warning and a W1b warning concerning that undertaking;

2.	Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex

(Case T-554/10) (1)

((Public procurement - Tendering procedures - Information technology services, hardware and software licences - Rejection of a tenderer’s bids - Obligation to state reasons - Selection and award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))

(2015/C 190/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decisions to reject the applicant’s bids for the call for tenders Frontex/OP/87/2010 relating to a framework contract for ‘ICT Services’ in the field of management technologies and information security (OJ 2010/S 66-098323) and for the call for tenders Frontex/OP/98/2010 concerning the Eurosur big pilot project in the field of information technologies and communications (OJ 2010/S 90-134098), and also of all associated decisions, including the decisions to award the contracts to other tenderers, and, secondly, for damages for the harm allegedly sustained as a result of the contracts being awarded to those tenderers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) of 18 October 2010 to reject the bid of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, filed in response to call for tenders 2010/S 66-098323, for Lot 1 (Information systems), for the supply of informatics services, hardware and software licences;

Annuls the decision of Frontex of 18 October 2010 to reject the bid of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, filed in response to call for tenders 2010/S 66-098323, for Lot 6 (Enterprise content management systems), for the supply of informatics services, hardware and software licences;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Frontex, and Frontex to bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/9

Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schenker Customs Agency v Commission

(Case T-576/11) (1)

((Customs Union - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Importation of glyphosate originating from Taiwan - Application for remission of import duties submitted by a customs agent - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Fairness clause - Special situation - Declarations for release for free circulation - Certificates of incorrect origin - Concept of obvious negligence - Commission decision declaring remission of duties not justified))

(2015/C 190/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Schenker Customs Agency BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Biermasz and A. Jansen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Keppenne and F. Wilman and subsequently by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, Agents, and by Y. Van Gerven, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 5208 final of 27 July 2011, finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 01/2010).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Schenker Customs Agency BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/10

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-190/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the European Union - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Fundamental rights - Proportionality))

(2015/C 190/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Johannes Tomana (Harare, Zimbabwe) and the 120 other applicants named in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially by D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester and R. Lööf, Barristers, and by M. O’Kane, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Vaughan, M. Lester and M. Lööf)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, M. Veiga and A. Vitro, Agents); European Commission (represented by M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Georgieva, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 47, p. 50), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 49, p. 2), and Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP of 27 February 2012 implementing Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other applicants listed in the annex hereto to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

3.	Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case T-290/12) (1)

((Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Aid to producer groups - Limitation on the Union’s financial participation - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 190/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: initially by B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, and subsequently by B. Majczyna and K. Straś, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by N. Donnelly, B. Schima and D. Milanowska, and subsequently by D. Milanowska and B. Schima, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Article 1(2) to (4), (6), (12) and (13), Article 2(1) to (3), read in conjunction with Article 3 of, and Annexes I and II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2012 of 4 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 99, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schlyter v Commission

(Case T-402/12) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Detailed opinion of the Commission concerning a draft Order relating to the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances, notified by the French authorities to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC - Refusal of access))

(2015/C 190/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carl Schlyter (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, A. Tokár and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, C. Stege, S. Johannesson and H. Karlsson, and subsequently by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and C. Hagerman, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: B. Beaupère-Manokha, D. Colas and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 27 June 2012 refusing, during the standstill period, access to its detailed opinion concerning a draft Order relating to the content and submission conditions of the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances (2011/673/F), which had been notified to it by the French authorities pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 June 2012 refusing, during the standstill period, access to its detailed opinion concerning a draft Order relating to the content and submission conditions of the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances (2011/673/F), which had been notified to it by the French authorities pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998;

2.	Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Carl Schlyter;

3.	Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/12

Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS)

(Case T-258/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ARKTIS - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the mark - Proof use for the registered goods - Consent of the trade mark owner))

(2015/C 190/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting and J. Mertens, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita (Locarno, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2013 (Case R 2133/2011-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Matratzen Concord GmbH and KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita.

Operative part of the judgment

1.	Dismisses the action;

Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs including the expenses necessarily incurred by KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)

(Case T-282/13) (1)

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

(2015/C 190/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iglotex SA (Skórcz, Poland) (represented by: I.-M. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Iglo Foods Group Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Brandreth and C. Hall, Barristers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2013 (Case R 67/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd and Iglotex SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Iglotex SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/14

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — BX v Commission

(Case T-352/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Constitution of a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) of Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship in the field of Law - Selection board’s decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list - Burden of proof - Comparative assessment - Equal treatment - Stability in the composition of the selection board - Fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Action for damages - Decision as to costs))

(2015/C 190/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013, in BX v Commission (F 88/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:51), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Mr BX to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/14

Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)

(Case T-319/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 190/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1356/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Rauschbrille as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/15

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Rezon v OHIM — mobile.international (mobile.de proMotor)

(Case T-337/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark mobile.de proMotor - Prior national figurative mark mobile - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 190/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2014 (Case R 950/2013-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Rezon OOD and mobile.international GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Rezon OOD to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/15

Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission

(Case T-137/15)

(2015/C 190/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl (Corsico, Italy); and Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Mayfield Heights, United States) (represented by: B. Amory, F. Marchini Camia, and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the present application admissible;

—	annul the contested decision insofar as it imposes default interest of EUR 1 8 59 949,04;

—	in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the default interest; and;

—	order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one main plea, and in the alternative, in seven other pleas in law.

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

—	The applicants contend that there is no legal basis to impose default interest when the fine was paid within the required time-frame set in the decision imposing the fine.

Second plea in law, alleging absence or inadequacy of the reasons stated in the contested decision.

—	The applicants contend that the contested decision provides neither the factual nor the legal basis for the application of default interest in the present case.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

—	The applicants contend that the application of default interest is disproportionate in view of the aim pursued by the default interest.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

—	The applicants contend that the Commission imposes default interest of 6 % in the present case whilst when it reimbursed part of the fine to the applicants it paid back interest of 1,06 %.

Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

—

The applicants contend that they could not have anticipated, on the basis of the decision imposing the fine and of the delegated Regulation, the imposition of default interest in the present situation. They furthermore state, that they could have legitimately expected that the Commission would not have applied default interest to the present situation.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the right of effective judicial protection.

—

The applicants contend that the contested decision infringes Article 266 TFEU insofar as it pre-empts its effet utile and it infringes the right of effective judicial protection since by asserting their fundamental right to seek judicial redress, the applicants now face the imposition of a manifestly disproportionate interest rate.

Seventh plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment.

—	The applicants contend that the application of default interest in the present case constitute an unjust enrichment on the part of the Commission.

Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

—	The applicants contend that the imposition of default interest on the applicants results in an outcome that totally deviates from the objectives behind conferring the Commission with delegated powers to set default interest.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-139/15)

(2015/C 190/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and A. Pálfy, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Set aside in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 53 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, with regard to Hungary, it excludes from European Union financing EUR 1 1 7 09 400 in relation to the sugar restructuring fund.

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant rejects the requirement which the Commission considers to apply, but which does not appear expressly in the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-187/12 and C-189/12 SFIR and Others, according to which the time of presentation of the aid application to which the exclusion contained in the contested decision refers is important for the purposes of examining the applicability of the exceptions contained in the judgment. That conclusion, according to the applicant, is contrary to the logic of the restructuring programme and, moreover, completely overlooks the seasonal nature of sugar production and calls into question the practical applicability of the exceptions.

Furthermore, the applicant considers that, although the Commission’s legal interpretation may be correct, as regards the legislation on restructuring aid — in particular the classification of silos — difficulties of interpretation have arisen, so that, given the uncertainty, the Commission acted in accordance with the law in reducing the amount excluded from European Union financing, having regard to the difficulties of interpretation inherent in the EU legislation, or completely disregarding the exclusion.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

(Case T-140/15)

(2015/C 190/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented by: L. Buchman, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SES-VanderHave NV/SA (Tienen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 15118, variety denomination M 02205

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void;

—	order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94;

—	Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;

—	Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed;

—	Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation;

—	Infringement of the principle of transparency and of the right of public access to documents insofar as the Examination process was not carried out in a transparent manner as the Applicant did not have access to fundamental documents.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/18

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-150/15)

(2015/C 190/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the action admissible and well-founded;

—	order the European Commission to pay the applicant 39 316,54 EUR;

—	condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 23 December 2005 on the project for European Action for Global Life science — Health Programme with reference LSSP-CT-2005-512135 (‘the Contract’), and claims for payment of the final amount of 39 316,54 EUR.

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

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.

—

The applicant puts forward that the debit note issued by the European Commission is based in the conclusions of the final audit report but that the appraisal carried out by the European Commission’s auditors for issuing this report was incorrect with respect to several costs, namely personnel costs and costs related to certain events. Therefore, the European Commission issued a debit note based on incorrect assumptions and failed to prove facts to support its allegations, resulting in an infringement of article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code and, consequently, in a contractual infraction.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as of Article 1347 of the Belgian Civil Code as the European Commission unjustly concluded that costs related to the work of certain members of the personnel were ineligible because those members did not have a valid employment contract with the applicant.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.

—

The applicant puts forward, amongst others, that it did not get the chance to defend itself by explaining to the European Commission any misunderstanding or minor mistake incurred by it in the performance of the Contract, that the enormous financial gap between the first draft audit report and the final audit report demonstrates a clear lack of correctness and prudency and that the several miscalculations and inaccuracies in figures throughout the whole final audit report have caused the applicant a struggle to properly understand the accusations made by the European Commission.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission at refusing to reimburse some costs.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

—	The applicant puts forward that the European Commission accepted the fact that the applicant was assisted by another legal entity and therefore created the legal expectation that the costs derived from this relationship would be perfectly eligible.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of clarity in the rules applicable to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP6’).

—

The applicant puts forward that according to Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, should uncertainty arise, an agreement is to be interpreted against he who stipulated it and in favor of he who contracted the obligation. The contractual rules applicable to FP6 result from ‘standard’ clauses established by the European Commission, to which the applicant had no other possibility but to adhere, making it the party who contracted the obligation. This situation, together with the fact that they pose evident problems of interpretation, as illustrated by the high numbers of appeals before the General Court questioning them, justifies that the uncertainty must benefit the applicant. The interpretation rule of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code makes it possible for the judge to construe the badly drafted or ambiguous provisions against their author, being the Commission.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-151/15)

(2015/C 190/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the action admissible and well-founded;

—	declare that the applicant is only liable of the amount of 5 638,22 EUR;

—	condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 20 December 2005 on the project for European Action for Global Life science — Food Forum with reference LSSP-CT-2005-512135 (‘the Contract’), and claims to be declared liable of the amount of 5 638,22 EUR against the 86 676,42 EUR requested by the European Commission.

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

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.

—

Second plea in law, alleging alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as of Article 1347 of the Belgian Civil Code as the European Commission unjustly concluded that costs related to the work of certain members of the personnel were ineligible because those members did not have a valid employment contract with the applicant.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.

—

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission at refusing to reimburse some costs.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

—	The applicant puts forward that the European Commission accepted the fact that the applicant was assisted by another legal entity and therefore created the legal expectation that the costs derived from this relationship would be perfectly eligible.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of clarity in the rules applicable to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP6’).

—

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/21

Appeal brought on 31 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission

(Case T-152/15 P)

(2015/C 190/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Curral and G. Gattinara, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

—	Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission;

—	Refer Case F-48/14 back to the Civil Service Tribunal, the appellant having withdrawn its action in Case F-1/14;

—	Reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in law in having held, where the conditions for admissions are ‘similar’, a jury is required to give reasons for the decision and not to admit a candidate to the tests on the basis of the assessment carried out by another jury for another competition in respect of the same candidate.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the requirement to give reasons, the CST having recognised that the nationality of the candidates was a condition for admission, in addition to others, but which, despite that, was not capable of creating a difference between the two opinions of the competitions in question.

Third plea in law, alleging the distortion of an essential matter in the case file, the CST having considered that the jury did not explain how its decision was different from that of the previous jury, even though the Commission had clearly set out that reasoning, both in its written submissions and at the hearing.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/22

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

(Case T-153/15)

(2015/C 190/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Order the production of the file in Case T-43/12;

—	Reserve the applicants the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

—

Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicants:

—	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

—	Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

—	Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council (1).

(1) OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/22

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Jaber v Council

(Case T-154/15)

(2015/C 190/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Order the production of the file in Case T-653/11;

—	Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

—

Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant:

—	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

—	Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

—	Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council (1).

(1) OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/23

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-155/15)

(2015/C 190/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Order the production of the file in Case T-654/11;

—	Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

—

Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant:

—	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

—	Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

—	Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council (1).

(1) OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/23

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — France v Commission

(Case T-156/15)

(2015/C 190/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: The French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

Partially annul Commission Decision C(2015) 53 Final, 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, as regards direct aid, it is based on findings that have not been referred to in the Commission’s communications; and, in so far as the procedure for review does not allow the correct application of EU legislation on correct agricultural and environmental conditions in respect of the claim years 2011 and 2012 to be ensured;

—	Partially annul Decision C(2015) 53 Final in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the entirety of expenditure made in the sector of aids to the area in Upper Corsica for the claim years 2010 and following;

—

Partially annul Decision C(2015)53 Final in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure made by the French Republic in respect of the aid, Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps (CANH) concerning Axis 2 of the rural development plan for the financial years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. In the alternative, partially annul that decision in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure made by the French Republic in respect of CANH aid for sheep which were the subject of on-the-spot checks made for verification of animal identification;

—

Partially annul Decision C(2015) 53 Final in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure made by the French Republic in the sector of the restructuring of the sugar industry at a level of 25 % of expenditure for aid paid to sugar producers who benefited from aid for complete dismantlement and maintained storage silos; in the alternative, partially annul that decision in so far as the financial correction imposed at a level of 25 % of the expenditure on aid paid to sugar producers who benefitted from aid for complete dismantlement and maintained storage silos is disproportionate;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law that concern three aspects of the contested decision.

—

The part of the contested decision that concerns the sector of 1st pillar direct aids for the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (1) and the applicant’s rights of the defence, in so far as the flat rate correction imposed on all the payments of aid in the abovementioned sector, with the exception of Upper Corsica, is based on deficiencies that were not notified to the applicant.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative, an infringement of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and of Annex III to that regulation.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 and the applicant’s rights of the defence in so far as the financial correction applied in this sector of all the aid expenditure in Upper Corsica is based on deficiencies that were not notified to the applicant.

Fourth plea in law, raised partially in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality and breach of document No VI/5330/97 of the Commission, of 23 December 1997, entitled ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the Decision regarding the clearance of the accounts’

—

The part of the contested decision concerning compensatory allowances for natural handicaps concerning Axis 2 of the rural development plan — EAFRD

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3), the Commission having wrongly found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations in respect of checks on the basis that the applicant had not carried out a livestock count during the on-the-spot checks.

6.	Sixth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the unlawful extension of the application of the flat-rate correction to sheep not eligible for the ewe premium.

—

The part of the contested decision in respect of the financial correction applied in the restructuring of the sugar industry sector

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 (4) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 (5), the Commission having excluded from European Union financing certain expenditure made by the applicant in the abovementioned sector on the basis that the stockage silos maintained on four French sites were production facilities.

8.	Eighth ground, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other entities and the clearance of accounts for the EAGF and the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

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

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74).

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/25

Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-157/15)

(2015/C 190/29)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: Kristi Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

annul 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) (C(2015) 53 final) (1) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91 746,53;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015 (C(2015) 53 final) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91 746,53 for the years 2009 to 2011.

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

By the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because the Commission wrongly ascertained and assessed the circumstances which were the basis of the decision and applied EU law incorrectly, leading to the false conclusion that Estonia had endangered EU funds.

According to the second plea, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and incorrectly applied Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2), in that the contested decision imposed a flat-rate financial correction of 2 % on Estonia.

According to the third plea, the Commission breached the principle of good administration, as it did not carefully assess and take into account all the evidence put forward by the applicant.

According to the fourth plea, the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty, as it took the view that the GAEC landscape elements standard should also have been applied and its application continually monitored in 2009.

(1) OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/26

Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)

(Case T-179/15)

(2015/C 190/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor, and J. Hill, Barrister)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 12 036 265

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2015 in Case R 2252/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1) (c) in conjunction with Article 7(1) (b) and Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/27

Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Buonotourist v Commission

(Case T-185/15)

(2015/C 190/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Buonotourist Srl (Castel San Giorgio, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo, lawyer, L. Visone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 on State aid Sa.35843 (2014/c) (ex 2012/NN), notified to the applicant on 20 February 2015 and implemented by Italy;

—

declare, in accordance with Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 in the procedure relating to State aid Sa.35843 (2014/c) (ex 2012/NN) (in the sum of EUR 1 1 11 572,00) totally null and void, in so far as it finds that the sums granted by way of compensation for public service obligations under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — compensation granted pursuant to Article 11 for a tariff obligation in the Local Public Transport sector — are to be regarded as a measure that has not been notified, constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which is incompatible with the internal market;

—

—	order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Buonotourist s.r.l.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision in the present case, the Commission declared that the payments made to Buonotourist, either by way of compensation or reparation for damage, for the unlawful unilateral imposition of public service obligations (PSO) for the period 1996-2002, in so far as they constitute a measure that has not been notified, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, which is incompatible with the internal market. As a consequence, the decision imposed operational measures for the recovery of the aid.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 8 pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 93, 107, 108 and 263 TFEU in relation to Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition, 1969(1), p. 276).

—

It is submitted in this regard that the question whether the compensation payments made in respect of PSO tariffs pursuant to Regulation No 1191/69 are compatible with Community law should have been considered in the light of the provisions of that regulation, not by reference to the Treaty provisions on State aid. The Commission therefore erred in law by acting on the basis of the Treaty provisions.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) in relation to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

—

It is submitted in this regard that the Commission treated the payments made to Buonotourist for the PSO imposed on it as a measure that had not been notified. On the contrary, those payments were made after the measure had been notified to the Commission. As a consequence, the Commission erred in law and made a procedural error by adopting the decision to open the procedure 14 months after receipt of the notification.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 93, 107 and 108 TFEU in relation to Article 17 of Regulation No 1191/69 and to Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

—	It is submitted in this regard that the Commission erred in law in that it infringed the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations as the case is governed by Regulation No 1191/69.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(f) in relation to Article 1(g) and to Articles 4, 7 and 15 of Regulation No 659/1999, for the purposes of Article 17 of Regulation No 1191/69.

—

It is submitted in this regard that compensation paid pursuant to that regulation is exempt from any preliminary information procedure and that the sums received by Buonotourist may therefore be classified as existing aid. The Commission erred in law by infringing Article 108(2) TFEU as it cannot order the recovery of sums paid on the basis that the aid granted is classified as unlawful.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU, Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and Articles 93, 107 and 108 TFEU.

—

It is submitted in this regard that the Consiglio di Stato has already carried out an assessment in relation to what is covered by the provisions laid down in Articles 11 and 17 of Regulation No 1191/69, thereby adopting a position to the effect that the sums granted are covered as existing aid. The Commission exceeded its power as it cannot annul decisions of judicial bodies, including national judicial bodies, when they apply Community law.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 6, 7 and 13 ECHR; Articles 93 — 107 and 108 in relation to Article 258 et seq. TFEU, in relation to Article 101 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic; and Article 2909 of the Italian Civil Code.

—

It is submitted in this regard that the contested decision has an impact on the status of res judicata of the judgment of the Consiglio di Stato interpreting and applying Community rules. The Commission has therefore once again exceeded its powers as it cannot set aside the judgment having the status of res judicata but must institute proceedings pursuant to Article 258 TFEU.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 11 and 17 of Regulation No 1191/69, Articles 93, 107 and 108 TFEU, and misuse of power in the present case.

—

It is submitted in this regard that a measure may be classified as State aid if it actually and specifically affects trade and free competition, in so far as it must be demonstrated that there is in fact such an effect. The Commission has absolutely failed to demonstrate that this is the case, especially in view of the fact that in the Regione Campania the internal local public transport (LPT) market has never been open to competition.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1, 11 and 17 of Regulation No 1191/69 and Articles 93, 107 and 108 TFEU.

—	It is submitted in this regard that the Commission made a factual error as it maintained that the compensation granted was calculated by a method established ex post. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the application that the opposite is in fact the case.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

Action brought on 14 April 2015 — CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission

(Case T-186/15)

(2015/C 190/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN), notified to the applicant on 19 February 2015, implemented by Italy;

—

declare, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU, that the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2015 in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) (for EUR 4 9 51 838) is entirely null and void in so far as it states that the sums awarded by way of compensation for public service obligations within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, granted under Article 11 of that regulation in respect of tariff obligations in the Local Public Transport sector, could be deemed a non-notified measure constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU which is incompatible with the internal market;

—	declare, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU, that the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2015 in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.35842 is entirely null and void in so far as it lays down operational measures for the recovery of aid paid by the Italian State;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-185/15 Buonotourist v Commission.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-187/15)

(2015/C 190/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Arzano, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul those chapters and parts of the contested decision which are subject to appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-185/15 Buonotourist v Commission and Case T-186/15 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission.

In particular, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 93, 94, 107 and 108 TFEU, infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1), infringement of Regulation No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1), lack of competence on the part of the Commission, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1191/69, a misuse of powers, and infringement of the Communication from the Commission on interpretative guidelines concerning Regulation No 1370/2007.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/30

Action brought on 15 April 2015 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission

(Case T-189/15)

(2015/C 190/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: TMG Landelijke Media BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Menzo Willems (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Le Poole and L. Broers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission Decision of 17 February 2015;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission Decision whereby their request for access to the correspondence between the Netherlands and the Commission, concerning the European additional tax imposed on the Netherlands in 2014, was rejected in part.

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). The applicants claim that the Commission wrongly did not make certain documents public because public disclosure would lead to an undermining of the protection of the public interest regarding European Union financial, monetary or economic policy.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants claim that the Commission provided evidence inadequate for concluding that the decision-making process will be seriously undermined, and that it wrongly and readily disregarded the test on the higher public interest in the public disclosure of certain documents.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in relation to the anonymisation of non-senior staff. The applicants claim that that makes it impossible to determine the level at which correspondence is carried out and whether it indeed concerns non-senior staff.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants are of the view that the Commission wrongly accepted the Netherlands’ request not to disclose certain documents originating from the Netherlands on the basis of Article 4(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. They refer in that regard to the arguments put forward in the context of the second and third pleas.

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

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/32

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Alsteens v Commission

(Case F-87/12 RENV)

((Civil Service - Referred back after setting aside of the judgment - Temporary member of staff - Renewal of contract - Six year rule))

(2015/C 190/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

Re:

Referred back after setting aside of the judgment — Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit the extension period of the applicant’s contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Alsteens to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F-87/12, T-373/13 P and F-87/12 RENV and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Case F-87/12;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Cases T-373/13 P and F-87/12 RENV.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/32

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA

(Case F-105/14) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary staff member - Selection procedure - Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board - No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application - Request for information - Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application - Complaint lodged against that reply - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2015/C 190/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ED (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action for the annulment of the decision not to retain the applicant’s application for the post of ‘Legal Officer’ in response to Vacancy Notice ENISA-TA-AD-2013-05.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	ED shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security.

(1) OJ C 7 of 12.1.2015, p. 53.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission

(Case F-131/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of contractual staff - Remuneration - Salary statement - Confirmative in nature - Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary - No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement - Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2015/C 190/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: David Bensai (Müllendorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contractual staff, following the increase in working hours to 40 hours a week as a result of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded.

2.	Mr Bensai shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 61.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/34

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-45/15)

(2015/C 190/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the implied decision of the defendant not to respond to the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the implied rejection decision taken by the defendant on 31 May 2014 and the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 22 December 2014 both refusing him a contract for an indefinite period;

—	In consequence, and principally, declare that, at the end of the contract currently running, the applicant will be offered a contract for an indefinite period;

—

In the alternative, if it were to prove appropriate to take account only of the sole contract concluded under the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU (CEOS), declare that the applicant will be offered a second fixed-term contract under CEOS by Europol at the end of the contract currently running;

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

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/35

Action brought on 24 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-47/15)

(2015/C 190/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to uphold the application for the retroactive grant of the dependent child allowance in respect of the two children of the applicant’s spouse, who live at her home every second week, with effect from the date of their marriage and payment of compensation.

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of 9 December 2014, notified on 16 December 2014, but only in so far as the Appointing Authority, after having upheld the claim in this regard and correctly decided to annul the decision of 19 June 2014 and therefore to grant her the dependent child allowance and the derived allowances, decided none the less not to grant the allowances in question retroactively from the date of her marriage, awarding the right to the dependent child allowance and the derived allowances only with effect from 1 March 2014, namely the first day of the month during which the applicant applied for review;

—

In any event, order the defendant, as compensation and under the unlimited jurisdiction of the Tribunal, to pay the sum of EUR 33 375,99, with the right reserved to increase that sum during the proceedings, in compensation for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, together with default interest at the statutory rate as applied in Belgium for the years in question from 1 September 2011 until the date of payment in full;

—	In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/36

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

(Case F-48/15)

(2015/C 190/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2013 and the recovery plan adopted on the basis of that report, together with a claim for damages in respect of the non-pecuniary loss allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the staff report drawn up concerning the applicant for 2013;

—	Annul the recovery plan adopted on the basis of the staff report;

—	Order OHIM to pay compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 10 000, reserving the right to increase or reduce that sum during the proceedings;

—	Order OHIM to pay the costs.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/37

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FS v EESC

(Case F-50/15)

(2015/C 190/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant in her post as head of unit and a claim for damages for the material and non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of 25 May 2014 of the President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) not confirming the applicant in her post as head of unit;

—	Annul the decision of 25 May 2014 entitled ‘Rider No 2’, reassigning the applicant to a non-management post;

—	In so far as necessary, annul the decision of 18 December 2014 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 21 August 2014;

—	Compensate the applicant for her material and non-pecuniary loss;

—	Order the EESC to pay all the costs.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/37

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FR v EASA

(Case F-51/15)

(2015/C 190/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot. lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision dated 13 June 2014;

—	in as far as necessary, annul the decision of 18 December 2014;

—	as a consequence, order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered should the applicant not be reintegrated within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA);

—	order the EASA to pay an indemnity for the moral prejudice suffered, evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 5 800 euros;

—	order the EASA to bear all the costs.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/38

Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission

(Case F-52/15)

(2015/C 190/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and a claim for damages with interest in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered and the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm alleged.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 25 June 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 31 October 2014;

—	Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting his claim, dated 10 December 2014 and served on the applicant on 29 December 2014;

—	Pay compensation for the material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decisions;

—	Award the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm;

—	Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

8.6.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/39

Action brought on 8 April 2015 — ZZ v Court of Justice

(Case F-53/15)

(2015/C 190/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the AECE’s decision establishing the applicant’s rights to reimbursement of the annual travel expenses from the year 2014 onwards, under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

—	Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

—	annul the decision fixing the amount of the reimbursement of the annual travel expenses granted to the applicant for the year 2014;

—	order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 190

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 58 8 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 190/01	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 190/02	Case C-130/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 March 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited	2
2015/C 190/03	Case C-138/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)	3
2015/C 190/04	Case C-141/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 25 March 2015 — Doux SA, Maître Sophie Gautier, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA, SCP Valliot-Le Guenevé-Abittbol, in the person of Maître Valliot, acting as administrator in the judicial administration of Doux SA v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)	4
2015/C 190/05	Case C-142/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission	5
2015/C 190/06	Case C-153/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union	6
2015/C 190/07	Case C-161/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v Belgian State	7
	General Court
2015/C 190/08	Case T-320/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Planet v Commission (Protection of the financial interests of the Union — Early warning system (EWS) enabling identification of the level of risk associated with contractors — OLAF enquiry into the performance of a public contract concerning an institutional modernisation project in Syria — Decisions to activate W1a and W1b warnings — Legal basis — Fundamental rights — Obligation to state reasons)	8
2015/C 190/09	Case T-554/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex (Public procurement — Tendering procedures — Information technology services, hardware and software licences — Rejection of a tenderer’s bids — Obligation to state reasons — Selection and award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)	8
2015/C 190/10	Case T-576/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schenker Customs Agency v Commission (Customs Union — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Importation of glyphosate originating from Taiwan — Application for remission of import duties submitted by a customs agent — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Fairness clause — Special situation — Declarations for release for free circulation — Certificates of incorrect origin — Concept of obvious negligence — Commission decision declaring remission of duties not justified)	9
2015/C 190/11	Case T-190/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe — Restrictions on entry into and transit through the European Union — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Fundamental rights — Proportionality)	10
2015/C 190/12	Case T-290/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Processed fruit and vegetables sectors — Aid to producer groups — Limitation on the Union’s financial participation — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Sincere cooperation)	11
2015/C 190/13	Case T-402/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schlyter v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Detailed opinion of the Commission concerning a draft Order relating to the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances, notified by the French authorities to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC — Refusal of access)	11
2015/C 190/14	Case T-258/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ARKTIS — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the mark — Proof use for the registered goods — Consent of the trade mark owner)	12
2015/C 190/15	Case T-282/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX — Earlier Community word mark IGLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	13
2015/C 190/16	Case T-352/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — BX v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Constitution of a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) of Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship in the field of Law — Selection board’s decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list — Burden of proof — Comparative assessment — Equal treatment — Stability in the composition of the selection board — Fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Action for damages — Decision as to costs)	14
2015/C 190/17	Case T-319/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	14
2015/C 190/18	Case T-337/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Rezon v OHIM — mobile.international (mobile.de proMotor) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark mobile.de proMotor — Prior national figurative mark mobile — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	15
2015/C 190/19	Case T-137/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission	15
2015/C 190/20	Case T-139/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission	17
2015/C 190/21	Case T-140/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)	17
2015/C 190/22	Case T-150/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission	18
2015/C 190/23	Case T-151/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — EFB v Commission	20
2015/C 190/24	Case T-152/15 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission	21
2015/C 190/25	Case T-153/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council	22
2015/C 190/26	Case T-154/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Jaber v Council	22
2015/C 190/27	Case T-155/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Kaddour v Council	23
2015/C 190/28	Case T-156/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — France v Commission	23
2015/C 190/29	Case T-157/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission	25
2015/C 190/30	Case T-179/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)	26
2015/C 190/31	Case T-185/15: Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Buonotourist v Commission	27
2015/C 190/32	Case T-186/15: Action brought on 14 April 2015 — CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission	29
2015/C 190/33	Case T-187/15: Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission	29
2015/C 190/34	Case T-189/15: Action brought on 15 April 2015 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission	30
2015/C 190/35	Case T-279/14: Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission	31
	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2015/C 190/36	Case F-87/12 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Alsteens v Commission (Civil Service — Referred back after setting aside of the judgment — Temporary member of staff — Renewal of contract — Six year rule)	32
2015/C 190/37	Case F-105/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Selection procedure — Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board — No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application — Request for information — Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application — Complaint lodged against that reply — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)	32
2015/C 190/38	Case F-131/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission (Civil Service — Member of contractual staff — Remuneration — Salary statement — Confirmative in nature — Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary — No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement — Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)	33
2015/C 190/39	Case F-45/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — ZZ v Europol	34
2015/C 190/40	Case F-46/15: Action brought on 20 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	34
2015/C 190/41	Case F-47/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	35
2015/C 190/42	Case F-48/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v OHIM	36
2015/C 190/43	Case F-49/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission	36
2015/C 190/44	Case F-50/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FS v EESC	37
2015/C 190/45	Case F-51/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FR v EASA	37
2015/C 190/46	Case F-52/15: Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission	38
2015/C 190/47	Case F-53/15: Action brought on 8 April 2015 — ZZ v Court of Justice	39