3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Daniel Unland v Land Berlin

(Case C-20/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) - Direct discrimination on grounds of age - Basic salary of judges - Transitional arrangements - Reclassification and subsequent career advancement - Different treatment perpetuated - Justifications))

(2015/C 363/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daniel Unland

Defendant: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

1)	Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that pay conditions for judges fall within the scope of that directive.

2)	Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the basic pay of a judge is determined at the time of his appointment solely according to the judge’s age.

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing the detailed rules governing the reclassification of existing judges within a new remuneration system under which the pay step that they are now to be allocated is determined solely on the basis of the amount received by way of basic pay under the old remuneration system, notwithstanding the fact that that system was founded on discrimination based on the judge’s age, provided the different treatment to which that law gives rise may be justified by the aim of protecting acquired rights.

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down detailed rules for the career progression of judges already in post before the entry into force of that law within a new remuneration system and securing faster pay progression from a certain pay step onwards for such judges who had reached a certain age at the time of transition to the new system than for such judges who were younger on the transition date, provided the different treatment to which that law gives rise may be justified in the light of Article 6(1) of that directive.

In circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, EU law does not require judges who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade.

It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions laid down by the case-law of the Court are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law.

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as the rule at issue in the main proceedings, which requires national judges to take steps, within relatively narrow time-limits — that is to say, before the end of the financial year then in course — to assert a claim to financial payments that do not arise directly from the law, where that rule does not conflict with the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE v European Commission

(Case C-506/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Contract granting Community financial assistance for a project in the field of medical collaboration - Commission decision to recover in part an advance payment made - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 363/03)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (represented by: E. Tzannini, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent, and E. Petritsi, dikigoros)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the appeal;

2)	Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV v Council of the European Union, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH, European Commission

(Case C-511/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) - Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Injury to the Community industry - Major proportion of the total Community production of the like products))

(2015/C 363/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A., Philips Lighting BV (represented by: L. Catrain González, abogada, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by S. Gubel, avocat, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor), Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), Osram GmbH (represented by: R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Philips Lighting Poland SA and Philips Lighting BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and of Osram GmbH;

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

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

(Case C-569/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 17 and 20(1) - Determination of the injury and of the causal link - Errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to exercise due care - Examination of the evidence sent by a sampled importer - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence))

(2015/C 363/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bricmate AB

Defendant: Tullverket

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

(Case C-687/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(a) - Normal value - Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country - Selection of the appropriate third country - Duty of care - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Sampling))

(2015/C 363/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz

(Case C-4/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 1(2) and 49 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Matters excluded - Family law - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 47(1) - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Judgment concerning rights of access which imposes a periodic penalty payment - Enforcement of that penalty payment))

(2015/C 363/07)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Christophe Bohez

Respondent: Ingrid Wiertz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation does not apply to the enforcement in a Member State of a penalty payment which is imposed in a judgment, given in another Member State, concerning rights of custody and rights of access in order to ensure that the holder of the rights of custody complies with those rights of access.

Recovery of a penalty payment — a penalty which the court of the Member State of origin that gave judgment on the merits with regard to rights of access has imposed in order to ensure the effectiveness of those rights — forms part of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access that the penalty safeguards and the latter must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.

3.	In the context of Regulation No 2201/2003, a foreign judgment which orders a periodic penalty payment is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/7

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-36/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - State intervention consisting of the obligation to apply prices for supplies of national gas approved by a national authority - Measure unlimited in time - No obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity of that measure and the nature of its application - Application to an unlimited set of users, without distinction between customers or between specific situations - Proportionality))

(2015/C 363/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

declares that, by applying a scheme of State intervention, consisting of the obligation, for energy undertakings, to apply prices for supplies of natural gas which have been approved by the president of the Urzad Regulacji Energetyki (Energy Regulation Authority), an obligation which is unlimited in time and for which national law does not impose on the administrative authorities any obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity and nature of the application of that intervention in the gas sector, having regard to the level of development of that sector, and which is characterised by its application to an unlimited group of users or customers, without any distinction being drawn according to customers and without any differentiation of the situation of individuals within the context of individual groups of customers, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under the provisions of Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC;

2.	orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-44/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 - Crossing of the external borders - Eurosur system - Development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis - Participation - Cooperation with Ireland and the United Kingdom - Validity))

(2015/C 363/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore, S. Alonso de Leon and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, F. Florindo Gijón, M.-M. Joséphidès and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and G. Gilmore, Barrister), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3)	Orders Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH, Ferho Frankfurt GmbH v Friedrich Leopold Freiherr Spies von Büllesheim

(Case C-47/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict - Articles 18 to 21 - Individual employment contract - Company director’s contract - Termination of the contract - Grounds - Poor performance and wrongful conduct - Action for a declaratory judgment and for damages - Definition of ‘individual contract of employment’))

(2015/C 363/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH, Ferho Frankfurt GmbH

Defendant: Friedrich Leopold Freiherr Spies von Büllesheim

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which a company sues a person, who performed the duties of director and manager of that company in order to establish misconduct on the part of that person in the performance of his duties and to obtain redress from him, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of Article 5(1) and (3) of that regulation, provided that that person, in his capacity as director and manager, for a certain period of time performed services for and under the direction of that company in return for which he received remuneration, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.

Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by a company against its former manager on the basis of an alleged breach of his obligations under company law comes within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’. In the absence of any derogating stipulation in the articles of association of the company, or in any other document, it is for the referring court to determine the place where the manager in fact, for the most part, carried out his activities in the performance of the contract, provided that the provision of services in that place is not contrary to the parties’ intentions as indicated by what was agreed.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which a company is suing its former manager on the basis of allegedly wrongful conduct, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that that action is a matter relating to tort or delict where the conduct complained of may not be considered to be a breach of the manager’s obligations under company law, that being a matter for the referring court to verify. It is for the referring court to identify, on the basis of the facts of the case, the closest linking factor between the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst (C-72/14) and T. A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-197/14)

(Joined Cases C-72/14 and C-197/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Applicable legislation - Rhine boatmen - E 101 certificate - Probative value - Reference to the Court - Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling))

(2015/C 363/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring courts

Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X (C-72/14), T. A. van Dijk (C-197/14)

Defendants: Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst (C-72/14), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-197/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, and Articles 10c to 11a, 12a and 12b of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State in the form of an E 101 certificate in order to certify that a worker is subject to the social security legislation of that Member State, when that worker comes within the scope of the Agreement of 13 February 1961 concerning the Social Security of Rhine Boatmen, signed at Geneva on 30 November 1979, is not binding on the institutions of other Member States. The fact that the issuing institution did not intend to issue a genuine E 101 certificate but used the standard form of that certificate for administrative reasons is irrelevant in that regard.

The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, such as the referring court, is not required to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the sole ground that a lower national court, in a case similar to the one before it and involving the same legal issue, has referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling; nor is it required to wait until an answer to that question has been given.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV v College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

(Case C-81/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/13/EC - Annex IIB - Atmospheric pollution - Volatile organic compounds - Emission reductions - Use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations - Obligations applying to existing installations - Time extension))

(2015/C 363/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV

Respondent: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations must be interpreted as meaning that the time extension provided for in point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to that directive may be given to the operator of an ‘installation’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, for the implementation of his plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, where substitutes containing little or no solvent are still under development, even though, for that installation, a constant solid content of product can be assumed and used to define the reference point for emission reductions.

Point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to Directive 1999/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a time extension for the implementation of a scheme to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds requires an authorisation from the competent authorities, which presupposes a prior application from the operator concerned. When determining whether a time extension must be given to an operator for the implementation of a plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and fixing the duration of the time extension which may be given, it is for those competent authorities, within the discretion available to them, to verify in particular that substitutes which may be used in the installations concerned and which may reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds are actually under development, that the work in progress, in the light of the evidence provided, is capable of perfecting such substitutes and that there is no alternative measure which may result in similar or even greater emission reductions, at a lower cost, and, in particular, that other substitutes are not already available. Furthermore, account should be taken of the relationship between, on the one hand, the emission reductions which can be achieved by means of the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes and, on the other hand, the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures. The duration of the time extension must not go beyond what is necessary for substitutes to be developed. That must be assessed in the light of all the relevant factors and, in particular, the magnitude of the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures as compared with the magnitude of the emission reductions that will be achieved by the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cuneo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others

(Case C-105/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Criminal proceedings concerning offences in relation to value added tax (VAT) - Article 325 TFEU - National legislation laying down absolute limitation periods which may give rise to impunity in respect of offences - Potential prejudice to the financial interest of the European Union - Obligation, for the national court, to disapply any provision of national law liable to affect fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under EU law))

(2015/C 363/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Cuneo

Parties in the main proceedings

Ivo Taricco, Ezio Filippi, Isabella Leonetti, Nicola Spagnolo, Davide Salvoni, Flavio Spaccavento, Goranco Anakiev

Operative part of the judgment

A national rule in relation to limitation periods for criminal offences such as that laid down by the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Penal Code, as amended by Law No 251 of 5 December 2005, read in conjunction with Article 161 of that Code — which provided, at the material time in the main proceedings, that the interruption of criminal proceedings concerning serious fraud in relation to value added tax had the effect of extending the limitation period by only a quarter of its initial duration — is liable to have an adverse effect on fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU if that national rule prevents the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or provides for longer limitation periods in respect of cases of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Member State concerned than in respect of those affecting the financial interests of the European Union, which it is for the national court to verify. The national court must give full effect to Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, if need be by disapplying the provisions of national law the effect of which would be to prevent the Member State concerned from fulfilling its obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU.

A limitation system applicable to criminal offences in relation to value added tax such as that established by the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Penal Code, as amended by Law No 251 of 5 December 2005, read in conjunction with Article 161 of that Code, cannot be assessed in the light of Articles 101 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 119 TFEU.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD), Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB) v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

(Case C-106/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment and protection of human health - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 7(2) and 33 - Substances of very high concern present in articles - Duties to notify and provide information - Calculation of threshold of 0,1 % weight by weight))

(2015/C 363/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD), Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB)

Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of application of that provision, it is for the producer to determine whether a substance of very high concern identified in accordance with Article 59(1) of that regulation, as amended, is present in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of any article it produces and, for the importer of a product made up of more than one article, to determine for each article whether such a substance is present in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of that article.

Article 33 of Regulation No 1907/2006, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of application of that provision, it is for the supplier of a product one or more constituent articles of which contain(s) a substance of very high concern identified in accordance with Article 59(1) of that regulation in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of that article, to inform the recipient and, on request, the consumer, of the presence of that substance by providing them, as a minimum, with the name of the substance in question.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-151/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))

(2015/C 363/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: D. Pelše, I. Kalniņš and K. Freimanis, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Tátrai and M. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Republic of Latvia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

2.	Orders the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs;

3.	Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

4.	Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/14

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa — Portugal) — João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português

(Case C-160/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - Meaning of ‘transfer of a business’ - Obligation to make a request for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Alleged infringement of EU law attributable to a court of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law - Rule of national law which makes the right to reparation for the loss or damage sustained as a result of such an infringement conditional on the prior setting aside of the decision that caused that loss or damage))

(2015/C 363/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Varas Cíveis de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others

Defendant: Estado português

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ encompasses a situation in which an undertaking active on the charter flights market is wound up by its majority shareholder, which is itself an air transport undertaking, and the latter undertaking then takes the place of the undertaking that has been wound up by taking over aircraft leasing contracts and ongoing charter flight contracts, carries on activities previously carried on by the undertaking that has been wound up, reinstates some employees that have hitherto been seconded to that undertaking, assigning them tasks identical to those previously performed, and takes over small items of equipment from the undertaking that has been wound up.

In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, which are characterised both by the fact that there are conflicting decisions of lower courts or tribunals regarding the interpretation of the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23 and by the fact that that concept frequently gives rise to difficulties of interpretation in the various Member States, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be construed as meaning that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is obliged to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of that concept.

EU law and, in particular, the principles laid down by the Court with regard to State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of an infringement of EU law by a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which requires, as a precondition, the setting aside of the decision given by that court or tribunal which caused the loss or damage, when such setting aside is, in practice, impossible.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG

(Case C-240/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air carrier liability in the event of accidents - Action for damages - Montreal Convention - Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 - Flight operated free of charge by the owner of a property in order to show that property to a prospective purchaser - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Direct action provided for by national law against the civil-liability insurer))

(2015/C 363/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eleonore Prüller-Frey

Defendants: Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a determination on the basis of Article 17 of that Convention of a claim for damages brought by a person who — whilst she (i) was a passenger in an aircraft that had the same place of take-off and landing in a Member State and (ii) was being carried free of charge for the purpose of viewing from the air a property in connection with a property transaction planned with the pilot of that aircraft — was physically injured when the aircraft crashed.

Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, a person who has suffered damage is entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the person liable to provide compensation, where such an action is provided for by the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, regardless of the provision made by the law that the parties have chosen as the law applicable to the insurance contract.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA

(Case C-266/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Point (1) of Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Workers who are not assigned a fixed or habitual place of work - Time spent travelling between the workers’ homes and the premises of the first and last customers))

(2015/C 363/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.)

Defendants: Tyco Integrated Security SL, Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which workers do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent by those workers travelling each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer constitutes ‘working time’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-363/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Europol - List of third States and organisations with which Europol is to conclude agreements - Determination of the legal basis - Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures - Consultation of the Parliament - Initiative of a Member State or the Commission))

(2015/C 363/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon, K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Škeřík, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Szima and M. Bóra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

3)	Orders the Czech Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des pensions (ONP)

(Case C-408/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Retired EU official who has, prior to entering the service, pursued an activity in an employed capacity in the Member State in which she is posted - Pension rights by virtue of the national pension scheme for employed persons - Occupational record unit - Refusal to pay the retirement pension for employed persons - Principle of sincere cooperation))

(2015/C 363/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aliny Wojciechowski

Defendant: Office national des pensions (ONP)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1080/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which may give rise to the reduction or refusal of a retirement pension payable to an employed person who is a national of that Member State by virtue of the service performed, in accordance with its legislation, where the total number of years of the occupational record acquired by him as an employed person in that Member State and as an EU official posted in that Member State exceeds the ‘occupational record unit’ of 45 years referred to in that legislation, in so far as, owing to the method used to calculate the fraction representing the size of the pension payable by the European Union, that reduction is greater than it would have been had he acquired the whole of his occupational record as an employed person in the Member State in question.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/18

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Dimos Kropias Attikis v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

(Case C-473/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Protection regime in respect of the Mount Hymettus area - Modification procedure - Applicability of the directive - Master plan and environmental protection programme for the greater Athens area))

(2015/C 363/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dimos Kropias Attikis

Defendant: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the adoption of a measure containing a plan or programme relating to town and country planning and land use falling within the scope of Directive 2001/42 that modifies an existing plan or programme may not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under that directive on the ground that that measure is intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure that has not itself been the subject of such an environmental assessment.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/18

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 2/15)

(2015/C 363/22)

Language of procedure: all the official languages

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, B. De Meester, M. Kocjan, R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Does the Union have the requisite competence to sign and conclude alone the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore? More specifically:

—	Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s exclusive competence?

—	Which provisions of the agreement fall within the Union’s shared competence? and

—	Is there any provision of the agreement that falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States?

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 July 2015 — Stadt Wiener Neustadt

(Case C-348/15)

(2015/C 363/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Stadt Wiener Neustadt

Intervener: A.S.A. Abfall Service AG

Respondent authority: Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

Question referred

Does EU law, in particular Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular Article 1(4) thereof, or Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular Article 1(5) thereof, preclude a provision of national law whereby projects subject to an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, which have not benefited from a consent granted under the national Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000 (Law on Environmental Impact Assessments of 2000) (UVP-G 2000) but have benefited only from consents granted under individual sectoral laws (such as the Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Law on Waste Management)) which, since 19 August 2009 (date of entry into force of the UVP-G-Novelle 2009 (Law of 2009 amending the Law on Environmental Impact Assessments)), can no longer be annulled following the expiry of a three-year time-limit laid down in national law (Paragraph 3(6) of the UVP-G 2000), are regarded as approved under the UVP-G 2000, or is such a provision consistent with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations established in EU law?

(1) OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg

(Case C-400/15)

(2015/C 363/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Brandenburg

Question referred

The second sentence of Paragraph 15(1) of the German Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax) provides that the intra-Community supply, importation or acquisition of goods which a commercial operator uses in the amount of less than 10 % for the purposes of his business does not count as being carried out for the purposes of his business — and to that extent excludes the right to deduct input tax.

That rule is based on Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC (1) of 19 November 2004, which authorises the Federal Republic of Germany, by way of derogation from Article 17(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to exclude expenditure on goods and services from the right to deduct VAT when the goods and services in question are used more than 90 % for the private purposes of a taxable person or of his employees, or, more generally, for non-business purposes.

Does this authorisation — in accordance with its wording — apply only to the cases covered by Article 6(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Article 26 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax), or does it apply, in addition, to all cases in which goods or services are used only partly for business purposes?

(1) OJ 2004 L 357, p. 33.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt

(Case C-417/15)

(2015/C 363/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

Question referred

Does a proceeding concerning the avoidance of a contract of gift on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract and the registration of the removal of an entry evidencing the donee’s right of ownership fall within the scope of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 (1), which provides for exclusive jurisdiction over rights in rem in immovable property?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado

(Case C-424/15)

(2015/C 363/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred

Is Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (1) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services to be interpreted to the effect that, from the perspective of the effective protection of the public interest for which the relevant national regulatory body is responsible, the creation by the national legislature of a regulatory and supervisory body of an unspecialised institutional model, which merges into a single body the pre-existing supervisory bodies in the energy, telecommunications and competition fields, may be considered compatible with the directive?

Must the conditions of ‘independence’ of national regulatory authorities for electronic communications networks and services, referred to in Article 3(2) and (3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (2), be the same as those required for national supervisory authorities for data protection under Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC (3)?

Is the decision in the judgment in Commission v Hungary, C-288/12 (4), applicable to a situation in which the officers of a national telecommunications regulatory authority are dismissed before their term of office has expired owing to the requirements of the new legal framework which creates a supervisory body grouping together various national regulatory authorities for regulated sectors? May that early dismissal, due only to the entry into force of a new national law and not to an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the office-holders as previously established in national law, be considered compatible with the provisions of Article 3 (3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

(2) OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37.

(3) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

(4) EU:C:2014:237.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, S.L.

(Case C-434/15)

(2015/C 363/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi

Defendant: Uber Systems Spain, S.L.

Questions referred

Inasmuch as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market excludes transport activities from the scope of that directive, must the activity carried out for profit by the defendant, consisting of acting as an intermediary between the owner of a vehicle and a person who needs to make a journey within a city, by managing the IT resources — in the words of the defendant, ‘intelligent telephone and technological platform’ interface and software application — which enable them to connect with one another, be considered to be merely a transport service or must it be considered to be an electronic intermediary service or an information society service, as defined by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC (2) 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 and of rules on Information Society services?

Within the identification of the legal nature of that activity, can it be considered to be … in part an information society service, and, if so, ought the electronic intermediary service to benefit from the principle of freedom to provide services as guaranteed in the Community legislation — Article 56 TFEU and Directives 2006/123/EC and … 2000/31/EC (3)?

If the service provided by UBER SYSTEMS SPAIN, S.L. were not to be considered to be a transport service and were therefore considered to fall within the cases covered by Directive 2006/123, the question arising is whether Article 15 of the Law on Unfair competition — concerning the infringement of rules governing competitive activity — is contrary to Directive 2006/123, specifically Article 9 on freedom of establishment and authorisation schemes, when the reference to national laws or legal provisions is made without taking into account the fact that the scheme for obtaining licences, authorisations and permits may not be in any way restrictive or disproportionate, that is, it may not unreasonably impede the principle of freedom of establishment.

If it is confirmed that Directive 2000/31/EC is applicable to the service provided by UBER SYSTEMS SPAIN, S.L., the question arising is whether restrictions in one Member State [regarding] the freedom to provide the electronic intermediary service from another Member State, in the form of making the service subject to an authorisation or a licence, or in the form of an injunction prohibiting provision of the electronic intermediary service based on the application of the national legislation on unfair competition, are valid measures that constitute derogations from paragraph 2 in accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31/EC.

(1) OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

(2) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.

(3) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2015 — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-435/15)

(2015/C 363/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GROFA GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Questions referred

(a)

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 of 29 November 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (1) applicable by analogy to the products which are the subject of the main proceedings (GoPro HERO3 ‘Black Edition’, ‘Black Edition Surf’, and ‘Black Edition Motorsport’)?

(b)	If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Is Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 valid?

If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative:

(a)	Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 of 8 August 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (2) applicable by analogy to the products which are the subject of the main proceedings?

(b)	If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Is Implementation Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 valid?

If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative:

Are the Commission’s Explanatory Notes to subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a sequence of video recorded in separate files each having a duration of less than 30 minutes is a recording of ‘at least 30 minutes in a single sequence of video’ if, when the recording is played, the viewer cannot perceive the switch between different files?

If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative, and the answer to questions 2(a), 2(b) and 3 is in the affirmative:

Does the fact that video camera recorders which are able to record signals from external sources are not able to reproduce those signals on an external television receiver or an external monitor preclude their being classified under subparagraph 8525 80 99 CN?

(1) 2011 OJ L 319, p. 39.

(2) 2014 OJ L 240, p. 12.

(3) 2015 OJ C 76, p. 1.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 August 2015 — Belgische Staat v Comm. VA Wereldhave Belgium and Others

(Case C-448/15)

(2015/C 363/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Belgische Staat

Respondents: Comm. VA Wereldhave Belgium, NV Wereldhave International, NV Wereldhave

Questions referred

Is Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States to be construed as precluding a national rule that does not waive Belgian advance tax on income from investments in respect of dividend payments made by a Belgian subsidiary to a parent company established in the Netherlands that fulfils the condition of a minimum participating interest and the holding of such an interest, on the ground that the Netherlands parent company is a fiscal investment institution that is required to distribute all its profits to its shareholders and, subject to that proviso, is eligible for the zero rate of corporation tax?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) and 63 (ex Article 56 TEC) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in the version in force since the amendment and numbering by the Treaty of Lisbon) to be construed as precluding a national rule that does not waive Belgian advance tax on income from investments in respect of dividend payments made by a Belgian subsidiary to a parent company established in the Netherlands that fulfils the condition of a minimum participating interest and the holding of such an interest, on the ground that the Netherlands parent company is a fiscal investment institution that is required to pay all its profits to its shareholders and, subject to that proviso, is eligible for the zero rate of corporation tax?

(1) OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against A, B

(Case C-453/15)

(2015/C 363/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

A, B

Question referred

Is Article 56(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that an allowance under Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2) which confers a right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent during a specified period is a ‘similar right’ within the meaning of that provision?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347. p. 1.

(2) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v A

(Case C-463/15)

(2015/C 363/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: A

Question referred

Do Article 2(4) and Article 4, paragraph 1, of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) permit the executing Member State to transpose those provisions into its national law in such a manner as to require that the act should be punishable under its law and that, under its law, a custodial sentence of a maximum period of at least twelve months is laid down for that act?

(1) 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-471/15)

(2015/C 363/32)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

In the circumstances of the present case, can parts from end-of-life vehicles which a VAT-registered vehicle reuse undertaking removes from a vehicle with a view to resale as spare parts be regarded as second-hand goods as referred to in Article 311(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive)?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/26

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-346/12) (1)

((Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetable sector - National financial assistance granted to producer organisations - Commission implementing decision concerning the reimbursement by the European Union of national financial assistance granted by Hungary to its producer organisations - Article 103e of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 97 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007))

(2015/C 363/33)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: initially M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, then M. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres, N. Donnelly and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C (2012) 3324 final of 25 May 2012 on national financial assistance granted to producer organisations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/26

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-472/12) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product Zoledronic acid Teva Pharma - zoledronic acid - Regulatory data protection period for the reference medicinal products Zometa and Aclasta, containing the active substance zoledronic acid - Directive 2001/83/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Global marketing authorisation - Regulatory data protection period))

(2015/C 363/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Sipos, and, subsequently by M. Wilderspin, P. Mihaylova and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, and C. Firth, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C (2012) 5894 final of 16 August 2012 granting a marketing authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Teva Pharma — zoledronic acid’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Teva Pharma BV.

(1) OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/27

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v OHIM — Lotte (Representation of a koala bear)

(Case T-483/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark representing koala bears - Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN and earlier national figurative mark KOALA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and P. Blumenthal, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter and H. Bickel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2103/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte Co. Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2103/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte Co. Ltd;

2.	Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH;

3.	Orders Lotte Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/28

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council

(Case T-5/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Infra-State body - Locus standi - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Error of assessment - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))

(2015/C 363/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and also of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Iran Liquefied Natural Gas in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

Orders the effects of Decision 2012/635 and Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 to be maintained as regards Iran Liquefied Natural Gas until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

4.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iran Liquefied Natural Gas in the context of the present proceedings and of the proceedings relating to the application for interim measures.

(1) OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/29

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-67/13) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product Zoledronic acid Hospira - zoledronic acid - Regulatory data protection period for the reference medicinal products Zometa and Aclasta, containing the active substance zoledronic acid - Directive 2001/83/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Global marketing authorisation - Regulatory data protection period))

(2015/C 363/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hospira UK Ltd (Royal Leamington Spa, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by N. Stoate and H. Austin, Solicitors, and J. Stratford QC, and subsequently by N. Stoate and E. Vickers, Solicitors, and J. Stratford QC)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C (2012) 8605 final of 19 November 2012 granting a marketing authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Hospira — zoledronic acid’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Hospira UK Ltd.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/30

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Iralco v Council

(Case T-158/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))

(2015/C 363/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Aluminium Co. (Iralco) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, M. Lester and M. Happold, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed Iranian Aluminium Co. (Iralco) in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed Iralco in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

3.	Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 to be maintained as regards Iralco until the entry into force of the order to annul Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012;

4.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Iralco.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/31

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE)

(Case T-387/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark COLOMBIANO HOUSE - Earlier protected geographical indication Café de Colombia - Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogota, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Bertoli and Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive (Chatou, France) (represented by: J. Beaumont, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia and Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5);

2.	Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia;

3.	Orders Ms Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive to bear her own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/32

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Miettinen v Council

(Case T-395/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion of the Council’s legal service concerning proposals for a Directive and a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of legal advice - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process))

(2015/C 363/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: K. Pellinghelli, P. Plaza García and K. Toomus, and subsequently by: P. Plaza García, A. Jensen and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and C. Hagerman, and subsequently: by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, K. Sparrman, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and F. Sjövall, acting as Agents); and Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Council decision of 13 May 2013 refusing full access to document No 12979/12 of 27 July 2012 containing an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service relating to the proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation and a Regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation and other instruments regarding the harmonisation of administrative sanctions in the framework of financial services.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 May 2013 denying full access to document No 12979/12 of 27 July 2012 containing an opinion of the Council's legal service relating to the proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation and a Regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation and other instruments regarding the harmonisation of administrative sanctions in the framework of financial services, and the letter of the Council of 23 July 2013;

2.	Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by Mr Samuli Miettinen;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Estonia to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/33

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Brouillard v Court of Justice

(Case T-420/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Conclusion of framework contracts - Translation of legal texts into French - Invitation to submit a tender - Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor - Professional capacity - Full legal education requirement - Recognition of professional qualifications - Proportionality - Transparency))

(2015/C 363/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J.-M. Gouazé, then J. Pertek and D. Dagyaran, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. Placco, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action for annulment of the letters of 5 June 2013 that the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed to IDEST Communication SA, by which it invited that company, first, to submit tenders in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the applicant would not be engaged in providing the services required under the contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Alain Laurent Brouillard to pay the costs of the proceedings.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/34

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Ricoh Belgium v Council

(Case T-691/13) (1)

((Public service and supply contracts - Tender procedure - Black and white multifunction printers and maintenance services - Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency))

(2015/C 363/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Ricoh Belgium NV (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: N. Braeckevelt and A. De Visscher, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and K. Michoel, acting as Agents, and B. Van Vooren and J. Weytjens, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2013/S 83-138901), and to award the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council in so far as it concerns lot No 4;

2.	Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/35

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-710/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Tafel - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann, and subsequently M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany) (represented by: M. Nitschke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Tiertafel Deutschland eV and Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4);

2.	Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV;

3.	Orders Tiertafel Deutschland eV to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/36

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — HTTS and Bateni v Council

(Case T-45/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran - Freezing of funds - Criterion relating to the provision of essential services to IRISL or to entities owned by it, under its control or acting on its behalf - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to respect for family life - Proportionality))

(2015/C 363/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and Naser Bateni (Hamburg) (represented initially by M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, subsequently by M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3) in so far as they relate to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Mr Naser Bateni in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Mr Bateni in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010.

3.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Mr Bateni.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/37

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — EMA v Drakeford

(Case T-231/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Non-renewal decision - Article 8, first paragraph, of the CEOS - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 363/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: David Drakeford (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents); European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and E. Maurage, acting as Agents); European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and V. Peres de Almeida, acting as Agents); European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, S. Gabbi and C. Pintado, acting as Agents); European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 5 February 2014 in Drakeford v EMA (F-29/13, ECR SC, EU:F:2014:10) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 5 February 2014 in Drakeford v EMA (F-29/13, ECR SC, EU:F:2014:10) in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal exercised its unlimited jurisdiction in relation to financial matters for the time after the order was made;

2.	Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3.	Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

4.	Reserves the costs for Mr David Drakeford and for the European Medicines Agency (EMA);

The European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) are ordered to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 202, 30.06.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/38

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Bankia v OHIM — Banco ActivoBank (Portugal) (Bankia)

(Case T-323/14) (1)

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

(2015/C 363/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: F. De Barba, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2014 (Joined Cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA, and Bankia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 February 2014 (Joined Cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2) to the extent that it upheld the appeal of Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA, concerning the ‘real estate services’ covered by the Community trade mark application in Class 36;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Bankia, SA, and OHIM to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/38

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION)

(Case T-550/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark COMPETITION - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2014 (Case R 2082/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign COMPETITION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/39

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Petrov and Others v European Parliament

(Case T-452/15)

(2015/C 363/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Andrei Petrov (St. Petersburg, Russia), Fedor Biryukov (Moscow, Russia), Alexander Sotnichenko (St. Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the ban on entering the premises of the European Parliament made by the President of the European Parliament against the applicants on 16 June 2015;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The applicants claim that they were discriminated against solely because of their nationality and in contravention of the prohibition under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since there appear to be no substantive grounds for the ban pronounced. Moreover, in the view of the applicants, their presence on the premises of the European Parliament did not pose a risk to security and could not adversely affect the Parliament’s functioning.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power The applicants claim that the actions of the President of the European Parliament were manifestly purely arbitrary and are diametrically opposed to the prohibition of discrimination in the Treaties.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/40

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA

(Case T-477/15)

(2015/C 363/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium;

—	order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, for the amount of 5 20 000 euros; and

—	order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that ECHA infringed the obligation to state reasons within the evaluation of their tender by not providing the relative advantages of the winning tender.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer and subsidiarily that it introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/41

Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-492/15)

(2015/C 363/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.21121 (C 29/2008) (ex NN 54/2007) — Flughafen Hahn and Ryanair;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

—	procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014,

—	an incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision,

—	misrepresentation of the facts of the case, since the Commission drew an incorrect picture of the case by not having regard to certain facts,

—	manifest contradictions in the contested decision,

—	incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airport at issue in so far as, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU, certain measures were not classified as State aid and others were classified as State aid in conformity with the internal market;

—	incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airline at issue, since they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/42

Action brought on 28 August 2015 — Fontem Holdings 4 v OHIM (BLU ECIGS)

(Case T-511/15)

(2015/C 363/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fontem Holdings 4 BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

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 ‘BLU ECIGS’ — Application for registration No 12 579 603

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 2697/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	annul the decision of the Examiner dated 22 August 2014 for application No 12 579 603;

—	accept the application No 12 579 603 for registration.

Plea in law

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

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/42

Action brought on 4 September 2015 — myToys.de v OHIM — Laboratorios Indas (myBaby)

(Case T-519/15)

(2015/C 363/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: myToys.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Hauss-Löhde and M. Mette, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘myBaby’ — Application for registration No 10 846 426

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2015 in Case R 1002/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2015 in the appeal proceedings R 1002/2014-2;

—	dismiss the opposition in its entirety;

—	revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2015 in appeal proceedings R 1137/2014-2;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—	Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 216/96 of 5 February 1996, laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/43

Action brought on 21 September 2015 — Terna v Commission

(Case T-544/15)

(2015/C 363/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) Reference No Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621 of 6 July 2015, in so far as that decision does not allow reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with project Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403, and imposes an obligation to repay sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table annexed to the contested measure;

—

in the alternative, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate General for Energy) — SRD.3 — Financial management Reference No Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621 of 6 July 2015, in so far as that decision does not provide for a reduction in the reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with project Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403 commensurate with the profits made by CESI S.p.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the measure adopted by the European Commission — Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) Reference No Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621 of 6 July 2015, received by Terna S.p.A. on 21 July 2015 (prot. No 0011151), in so far as that decision precludes the application of Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC in relation to payments made in connection with project Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-SI2.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403 and imposes an obligation to repay sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table annexed to the contested measure, and against any preliminary or in any way connected act, with particular reference, in so far as necessary, to the note of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Energy (Directorate B — Security of supply, Energy markets and Networks, B.1. — Energy policy, Security of supply and Networks) Reference No ENER.B1(2014)509729 of 18 June 2014, as well as Audit Report No B22-09 of 1 February 2013, in so far it is claimed that the costs incurred by Terna S.p.A in connection with the services provided by CESI S.p.A. in relation to those projects are not eligible for reimbursement.

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

First plea in law, relating to the admissibility of the action.

—

It is submitted in this regard that the contested measure was adopted in respect of the applicant, since it is of direct and individual concern to the applicant, and, while it does not have a specific implementing provision, that measure must be regarded as definitive and not subject to further review by the defendant.

Second plea in law, relating to the substance of the applicant’s claims, the misapplication of Articles 14 and 37 of Directive 2004/17 in connection with the subcontracting of services, the failure to conduct inquiries and absence of adequate reasons in the contested measure, the misapplication of Article III.7, paragraphs 1, 4 and 6 of Annex III to Decision D/207630 of 2008 and misapplication of Article III.7, paragraphs 1, 4 and 6 of Annex III to Decision D/7181 of 2010 and the consequent unjustifiable reduction in reimbursement for projects on the ground of an alleged failure on the part of Terna properly to apply formal procurement procedures.

—

It is submitted in this regard, in particular, that the inclusion of a provision permitting subcontracting in the framework agreements concluded between Terna and CESI at the conclusion of a negotiated procedure not preceded by the publication of a contract notice cannot be said to be contrary to Directive 2004/17 and nor can it be relied on, as claimed, as being indicative of the fact that there are no technical reasons justifying the contract being executed by a particular operator.

—	The contested measure is also vitiated on other grounds, relating to the incorrect classification of the relationship between the framework agreement and individual contracts granted by Terna so CESI.

Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 40(3)(c) of Directive 2004/17 on the basis that the Commission found that there were no technical reasons justifying the award of contracts to a particular operator without prior publication of a contract notice, failure to conduct inquiries and failure to give adequate reasons in the decision rejecting the claim for reimbursement.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of Directive 2004/17 and failure to have regard to Terna’s legitimate expectations on the ground that the claims for reimbursement relating to the contracts forming part of the framework agreement were disallowed as ineligible, notwithstanding the publication of the contract award notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and the irrelevance of some of the amounts for the purposes of European procedures.

5.	Fifth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging breach of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, on account of the Commission’s decision to disallow the claims for reimbursement in their entirety, rather than reducing them on a proportionate basis.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/46

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 September 2015 — Anagnostu and Others v Commission

(Case F-72/11) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures - Reference multiplication rates - Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations - Transitional measures for the period between 1 May 2004 and 30 April 2011 - Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Setting of promotion thresholds - Not included in the list of promoted officials - Interest in bringing proceedings))

(2015/C 363/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Anastasios Anagnostu (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) and 24 other applicants (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application, firstly, for annulment of the decisions setting the promotion thresholds for the 2010 and 2011 procedures as regards grades AD 13 and AD 14 and, secondly, for annulment of the list of officials promoted to grades AD 13 and AD 14 for the 2010 exercise and annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to promote a larger number of other officials to grades AD 12 or AD 13.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 26 November 2010 not to promote Mr Antoulas, Ms Bruni, Ms Nicolaidou-Kallergis and Mr Xanthopoulos;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear four twenty-fifths of its own costs and to pay four twenty-fifths of the costs incurred by the applicants;

4.	Orders the applicants other than Mr Antoulas, Ms Bruni, Ms Nicolaidou-Kallergis and Mr Xanthopoulos to bear twenty-one twenty-fifths of their own costs and to pay twenty-one twenty-fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011, p. 20.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/47

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Barnett v EESC

(Case F-20/14) (1)

((Civil service - Pension - Retirement pension - Early retirement without reduction of pension rights - General implementing provisions for Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions - Interests of the service - Definition - None - Duration of the applicant’s professional activity - Taking account of all of the professional career both inside and outside the EU institutions - Discretion of the institution - Legality))

(2015/C 363/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: initially N. Nikolajsen, lawyer, then S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, L. Camarena Januzec and K. Gambino, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request to be entitled to early retirement without a reduction of her pension rights, pursuant to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 July 2013, issuing the list of beneficiaries, in respect of 2013, of the measure laid down in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as it refuses to allow Mrs Barnett to benefit from that measure;

2)	orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Barnett.

(1) OJ C 175, 10/6/2014, p. 55.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/47

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Gioria v Commission

(Case F-82/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Open competitions - Competition EPSO/AST/126/12 - Family relationship between a member of the selection board and a candidate - Conflict of interests - Article 27 of the Staff Regulations - Recruitment of officials with the highest integrity - Decision to exclude the candidate from the competition))

(2015/C 363/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Gioria (Veruno, Italy) (represented by: M. Cornacchia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from Competition EPSO/AST/126/2012 because he did not inform the Selection Board of his family relationship to one of the members of the board.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Gioria to bear half of his own costs;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Gioria.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 32.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/48

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Silvan v Commission

(Case F-83/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - 2013 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Commission GIP - Plea of illegality - Comparison of the merits - Account taken of the staff assessment reports - Lack of marks awarded or analytical assessments - Wording of the comments))

(2015/C 363/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Juha Tapio Silvan (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 10) in the European Commission’s 2013 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Silvan to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 47.

3.11.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/49

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2015 — Weissenfels v Parliament

(Case F-92/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Action for compensation - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Content of an e-mail sent by the administration to a retired official - Impugnment of the applicant’s honour - Absence - Communication by the staff representing the institution of the applicant’s personal information to his lawyer in proceedings before the General Court - Infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 - False factual assertions))

(2015/C 363/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg in Brisgau, Germany) (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, firstly, for annulment of the European Parliament’s refusal to compensate the application for the harm which he has suffered due to infringements of his personal rights and of the provisions of Regulation No 45/2011 in the handling of a previous case, and, secondly, for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Weissenfels to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014, p. 40.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 363

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 58 3 November 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 363/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1