11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/3

Decisions adopted by the Court in its Special General Meeting on 12 October 2015

(2016/C 007/08)

Assignment of Judges to Chambers of five Judges

At its General Meeting on 12 October 2015, the Court decided to assign Judges to the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

First Chamber

Ms Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber,

Mr Bonichot, Mr Arabadjiev, Mr Fernlund, Mr Rodin and Mr Regan, Judges.

Second Chamber

Mr Ilešič, President of the Chamber,

Mr Rosas, Ms Toader, Ms Prechal and Mr Jarašiūnas, Judges.

Third Chamber

Mr Bay Larsen, President of the Chamber,

Mr Malenovský, Mr Safjan, Mr Šváby and Mr Vilaras, Judges.

Fourth Chamber

Mr von Danwitz, President of the Chamber,

Mr Juhász, Mr Vajda, Ms Jürimäe and Mr Lycourgos, Judges.

Fifth Chamber

Mr Da Cruz, President of the Chamber,

Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Levits, Ms Berger and Mr Biltgen, Judges.

Assignment of Judges to Chambers of three Judges

At its meeting on 12 October 2015, the Court decided to assign Judges to the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr Arabadjiev, President of the Chamber,

Mr Bonichot, Mr Fernlund, Mr Rodin and Mr Regan, Judges.

Seventh Chamber

Ms Toader, President of the Chamber,

Mr Rosas, Ms Prechal and Mr Jarašiūnas, Judges.

Eighth Chamber

Mr Šváby, President of the Chamber,

Mr Malenovský, Mr Safjan, and Mr Vilaras, Judges.

Ninth Chamber

Mr Lycourgos, President of the Chamber,

Mr Juhász, Mr Vajda and Ms Jürimäe, Judges.

Tenth Chamber

Mr Biltgen, President of the Chamber,

Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Levits and Ms Berger, Judges.

Assignment of the Vice-President to a Chamber of five Judges

At its meeting on 12 October 2015, the Court decided to assign the Vice-President to a Chamber of five Judges for all cases in which he is the Judge Rapporteur and which are allocated by the Court to such a Chamber.

By application of Article 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to assign Mr Tizzano to the Fifth Chamber for the period from 12 October 2015 to 6 October 2018.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/5

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2016/C 007/09)

At its Meeting on 13 October 2015, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

Mr Rosas

Mr Regan

Mr Juhász

Mr Vilaras

Mr Borg Barthet

Mr Lycourgos

Mr Malenovský

Ms Jürimäe

Mr Levits

Mr Biltgen

Mr Bonichot

Mr Rodin

Mr Arabadjiev

Mr Vajda

Ms Toader

Mr Fernlund

Mr Safjan

Mr Jarašiūnas

Mr Šváby

Ms Prechal

Ms Berger

At its Meeting on 13 October 2015, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

First Chamber:

Mr Bonichot

Mr Regan

Mr Arabadjiev

Mr Rodin

Mr Fernlund

Second Chamber:

Mr Rosas

Mr Jarašiūnas

Ms Toader

Ms Prechal

Third Chamber:

Mr Malenovský

Mr Vilaras

Mr Safjan

Mr Šváby

Fourth Chamber:

Mr Juhász

Mr Lycourgos

Mr Vajda

Ms Jürimäe

Fifth Chamber:

Mr Borg Barthet

Mr Biltgen

Mr Levits

Ms Berger

At its Meeting on 13 October 2015, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr Bonichot

Mr Fernlund

Mr Rodin

Mr Regan

Seventh Chamber

Mr Rosas

Ms Prechal

Mr Jarašiūnas

Eighth Chamber

Mr Malenovský

Mr Safjan

Mr Vilaras

Ninth Chamber

Mr Juhász

Mr Vajda

Ms Jürimäe

Tenth Chamber

Mr Borg Barthet

Mr Levits

Ms Berger

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’, Oława v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, Warsaw

(Case C-367/15)

(2016/C 007/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’, Oława

Other party: Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, Warsaw

Questions referred

Is Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the rightholder whose economic rights of copyright have been infringed may seek redress for the damage which it has incurred on the basis of general principles, or, without having to prove loss and the causal relationship between the event which infringed its rights and the loss, may seek payment of a sum of money corresponding to twice the amount of the appropriate fee, or, in the event of a culpable infringement, three times the amount of the appropriate fee, whereas Article 13 of Directive 2004/48 states that it is a judicial authority which must decide on damages by taking into account the factors listed in Article 13(1)(a), and only as an alternative in certain cases may set the damages as a lump sum, taking into consideration the elements listed in Article 13(1)(b) of that directive?

Is the award, made at the request of a party, of damages as a pre-determined lump sum corresponding to twice or three times the amount of the appropriate fee permissible pursuant to Article 13 of the directive, regard being had to the fact that recital 26 of the preamble thereto states that it is not the aim of the directive to introduce punitive damages?

(1) OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2015 — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle

(Case C-535/15)

(2016/C 007/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

Intervening party: The representative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Is Article 5 of the REACH Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, subject to Articles 6, 7, 21 and 23 of the REACH Regulation, substances may not be exported out of the European Union unless they have been registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of Title II of the REACH Regulation where this is required?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing 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 (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/830 of 28 May 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 8).

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/9

Action brought on 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-540/15)

(2016/C 007/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by Μaria Patakia, Muriel Heller and Klara Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2012/27/ΕU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive.

—	Order the Hellenic Republic to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 29 145,6 from the date of delivery of the Court’s judgment.

—	order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2012/27/ΕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 is concerned with energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (‘the Directive’). In accordance with Article 1 thereof, Directive 2012/27/ΕU establishes a common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the Union in order to ensure the achievement of the Union’s 2020 20 % headline target on energy efficiency and to pave the way for further energy efficiency improvements beyond that date. The Directive lays down rules designed to remove barriers in the energy market and overcome market failures that impede efficiency in the supply and use of energy, and provides for the establishment of indicative national energy efficiency targets for 2020.

In accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2012/27/EU, the Member States are obliged to adopt the national provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 5 June 2014 and, more specifically, with respect to particular obligations which are referred to in particular articles, which are referred to in Article 28, by the dates specified in those articles, and to communicate the measures which they adopt to the Commission. That communication is an intrinsic element of the obligation to transpose EU directives into national law and of the duty of sincere cooperation, and that fact is also reflected in Article 260(3) TFEU.

The Commission, after following the procedure provided for in Article 258(2) TFEU, found that the Hellenic Republic did not adopt, within the time-limits prescribed for the relevant provisions of the Directive the measures required for the transposition of Directive 2012/27/EU and has not to date done so, or, in any event, did not communicate those measures to it, and decided to being an action before the Court against the Hellenic Republic seeking a declaration of the infringement concerned.

Further, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission claims that the Court should impose a financial penalty on the Hellenic Republic. The financial penalty proposed by the Commission is calculated in accordance with the criteria and the method adopted by the Commission in the relevant Communication of 15 January 2011.

(1) OJ L 315 of 14.11.2012, p. 1.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/10

Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-546/15)

(2016/C 007/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, M. Heller and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 24(1) of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the defendant had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

—

order the defendant, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, on account of its failure to fulfil the obligation to notify implementing measures, to pay a penalty payment in the daily amount of EUR 210 078, payable to the own-resources account of the European Union, as from the date of the Court’s judgment declaring that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations;

—	order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 14 February 2014.

(1) OJ 2012 L 197, p. 38.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet

(Case C-549/15)

(2016/C 007/17)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Biofor Sverige AB

Defendant: Statens energimyndighet

Questions referred

1.	Are the terms ‘mass balance’ and ‘mixture’ in Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have an obligation to accept trade in biogas between Member States via an interconnected gas network?

2.	If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in that case is the relevant provision of the directive compatible with Article 34 TFEU, despite the fact that application thereof is likely to have the effect of restricting trade?

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/11

Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-557/15)

(2016/C 007/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that by adopting a derogation regime allowing the live-capturing of seven species of wild finches (Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Linnet Carduelis cannabina, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Greenfinch Carduelis chloris, Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes, Serin Serinus serinus and Siskin Carduelis spinus), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(a) and 5(e) and 8(1) in connection with Annex IV, point (a), read in conjunction with Article 9(1), of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (1);

—	order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Malta introduced a derogation regime for the authorization of trapping seven species of wild finches in 2014 under which it authorized trapping seasons in 2014 and 2015.

Directive 2009/147 obliges Member States to prohibit the capture and keeping of wild birds not included in Annex II, such as the finches in question, and any capture of wild birds via non-selective means such as traps or nets. Any derogation from these prohibitions is subject to the strict conditions set out in Article 9 of the Directive.

The Commission considers that Malta's derogation regime allowing the trapping of the seven finch species is inconsistent with Articles 5(a), 5(e) and 8(1) in connection with Annex IV, point (a) of the Directive.

The Commission considers that Malta has not established that the conditions for derogation set out in Article 9(1) of the Directive are met. First, Malta fails to demonstrate the absence of another satisfactory solution as required by the chapeau of Article 9(1) of the Directive. Second, Malta's derogation regime fails to provide a statement of reasons with regard to the alleged absence of other satisfactory solutions. Third, Malta has not demonstrated that the authorized activity constitutes ‘judicious use’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive. Fourth, Malta fails to demonstrate compliance with the requirement in Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive that the derogation only concerns ‘small numbers’ of birds. Fifth, Malta has not established that the authorization occurs under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ as required by Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 20, p. 7.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/12

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alexios Anagnostakis against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2015 by the General Court (First Chamber) in Case T-450/12 Anagnostakis v Commission

(Case C-589/15 P)

(2016/C 007/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment in Case T-450/12 on the action brought on 11 October 2012 against the European Commission for annulment of the latter’s measure of 6 September 2012 rejecting registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;

—	grant the form of order sought in the abovementioned action;

—	annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 September 2012 rejecting registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;

—	order the Commission to register the abovementioned initiative in accordance with the law, and order any other measure required by law;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defects in the course of the proceedings before the General Court

The judgment under appeal overlooked entirely, when assessing the action, that the proposal for a European citizens’ initiative concerned exclusively that part of the public debt which is considered ‘abhorrent’.

The view is incorrectly taken in the grounds of the judgment under appeal that the proposal concerns the entire public debt, without any other distinction or precondition.

In that respect, the judgment under appeal failed to assess the subject-matter of the case correctly.

A judgment was delivered on the basis of a misappraisal of the action’s content and of the form of order sought by it.

Infringement of EU law by the General Court, misinterpretation and misapplication of the Treaties and of European legislation

(A)

Misinterpreting and misapplying EU law, the judgment under appeal held that Articles 122 TFEU and 136 TFEU, relied upon in the application, are not an appropriate legal basis for any financial assistance from the European Union by establishment of a financing mechanism for Member States which are experiencing, or are threatened by, severe financing problems.

Under Article 136 TFEU as amended by European Council Decision 2011/199/EU (1) of 25 March 2011 and Articles 4(1) TFEU and 5(2) TFEU, the power of the Member States whose currency is the euro to conclude amongst themselves an agreement relating to the establishment of a stability mechanism and of financial assistance is absolute. The Commission has a particular conferred power and discretion in respect of a proposal to establish such a mechanism under Article 352 TFEU, as necessary action to attain the objectives of the Treaties, regarding stability in the Euro area.

(B)

Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal held that there is nothing that supports the conclusion or proves that adoption of the principle of the state of necessity would have the effect of strengthening the coordination of budgetary discipline or would come under the economic policy guidelines which the Council is empowered to set out for the purpose of the proper functioning of economic and monetary union.

On the contrary, on a correct interpretation and correct application, the measure sought, non-payment of the abhorrent debt, is designed exclusively to strengthen the budgetary discipline of the Member States and to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union (Article 136(1) TFEU).

(C)

Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal ruled out the application of Article 122 TFEU as an appropriate legal basis for adoption of the principle of the state of necessity in EU legislation.

The Commission has the power, under Article 352 TFEU, to submit a proposal to the Council to recommend either to the Member States assistance in solidarity under Article 122(1) TFEU or the financial assistance of the European Union under Article 122(2) TFEU for the Member State that is in serious difficulties for which it is not to blame.

(D)

Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal held that it must be found that the Commission complied with the obligation to state reasons as regards adoption of the contested decision rejecting the request to register the proposal for a European citizens’ initiative. The reasons for rejection stated in the contested measure are insufficient and defective. They are contrary to the duty pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 to state full reasons.

(E)

Misinterpreting and misapplying EU law, the judgment under appeal maintains that, if the principle of the state of necessity exists as a rule of international law, that is not sufficient to form the basis for a legislative initiative on the part of the Commission. International law and the principles of international law constitute sources of law for the European Union. As such they are directly incorporated into and applied in EU law, without more. The Commission has a right of proposal with regard to the application of the foregoing principles of higher-ranking law, even without specific provision in the Treaties should it be considered that the latter is lacking.

(F)	Misapplying and misinterpreting the law, the judgment under appeal ordered the appellant to pay the Commission’s costs. Had the law been appraised correctly, in accordance with the foregoing, the action would have been upheld and the Commission would have been ordered to pay the relevant costs.

(1) OJ 2011 L 91, p. 1.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/15

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mecafer v Commission

(Case T-74/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))

(2016/C 007/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mecafer (Valence, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul that decision, for the maintenance in force of the effects of that decision until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Mecafer SA a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/15

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission

(Case T-76/12) (1)

(2016/C 007/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA (Robassomero, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011) 8824 final and C(2011) 8812 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul those decisions, for the maintenance in force of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions C(2011) 8824 final and C(2011) 8812 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/16

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C and HSH Investment Holdings FSO v Commission

(Case T-499/12) (1)

((State aid - Banking sector - Restructuring of HSH Nordbank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions - Action for annulment - Lack of individual concern - Minority shareholder of the aid beneficiary - Concept of distinctive interest - Partial inadmissibility - capital dilution))

(2016/C 007/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C Sàrl (Luxembourg); and HSH Investment Holdings FSO Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers and C. Kovács, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/477/EU of 20 September 2011 on State aid granted by Germany to HSH Nordbank AG SA.29338 (C 29/09 (ex N 264/09)) (OJ 2012 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C Sàrl and HSH Investment Holdings FSO Sàrl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/17

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-106/13) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Early termination of contracts - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Good faith - Non-contractual liability - Reclassification of the action - Coexisting applications for contractual and non-contractual liability - Early warning system (EWS) - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link))

(2016/C 007/23)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, and by L. Athanassiou and G. Gerapetritis, lawyers)

Re:

Applications for contractual and non-contractual liability made in the context of implementing several contracts which the Commission has concluded with the applicant under the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/18

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex (IRAP)

(Case T-253/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark IRAP - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orthogen AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Finger and S. Krüger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Arthrex GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: R. Greiffenberg and O. Stöckel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 382/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Arthrex GmbH and Orthogen AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Orthogen AG to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Arthrex GmbH.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/18

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-255/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat rate financial corrections - Direct payments - Conditionality - Aid for the processing of citrus fruit - Conditions for accreditation of a paying agency))

(2016/C 007/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Italy (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by B. Tidore and M. Salvatorelli, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and P. Rossi, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), in so far as it contains flat rate financial corrections concerning expenditure incurred by the Republic of Italy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

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

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/19

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Menelaus v OHIM — Garcia Mahiques (VIGOR)

(Case T-361/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VIGOR - Earlier Community figurative mark and earlier international figurative mark VIGAR - Admissibility of evidence of use submitted on a CD-ROM - Taking into account of additional evidence which was not submitted within the time-limit set - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))

(2016/C 007/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Menelaus BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Vicente Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre, Spain) and Felipe Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre) (represented by: E. Pérez Crespo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2013 (Case R 88/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques and, on the other hand, Menelaus BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Menelaus BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Messrs Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/20

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

(Case T-449/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark WISENT - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

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 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4);

2.	Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/21

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

(Case T-450/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

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 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4);

2.	Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/21

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA)

(Case T-508/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA - Earlier unregistered figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA - Relative ground for refusal - Absence of rights to the earlier sign having been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State before the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Use of the earlier mark as a label - Common-law action for passing off - Lack of goodwill))

(2016/C 007/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Government of Malaysia (represented by: initially R. Volterra, Solicitor, R. Miller, Barrister, V. von Bomhard and T. Heitmann, lawyers, then R. Volterra, R. Miller and V. von Bomhard)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Paola Vergamini (Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 326/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the Government of Malaysia and Ms Paola Vergamini.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Government of Malaysia to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/22

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Dyson v Commission

(Case T-544/13) (1)

((Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Competence of the Commission - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 007/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Dyson Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/23

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-550/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Reasonable period - Absence of key controls - Extrapolation of the findings of default))

(2016/C 007/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, K. Skelly, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/23

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (Mustang)

(Case T-606/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Mustang - Earlier national word and figurative marks MUSTANG - No risk of detriment to the reputation of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Völker, then C. Roos and S. Speckmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Dubek Ltd (Petach Tikva, Israel) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 September 2013 (Case R 416/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG and Dubek Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/24

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 007/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Heringa and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications for annulment of (i) the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2014 refusing to grant access to an Impact Assessment report for a proposed binding instrument setting a strategic framework for risk-based inspection and surveillance in relation to EU environmental legislation and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board and (ii) the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 refusing to grant access to a draft Impact Assessment report relating to access to justice in environmental matters at Member State level in the field of EU environmental policy and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions;

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

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/25

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Alexandrou v Commission

(Joined Cases T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Obligation to state reasons - Access to documents - Refusal of the request for access to the multiple-choice questions posed in the admission tests - Confidential nature of the Selection Board Proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Competence of the Civil Service Tribunal - Article 270 TFEU - Concept of act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(2) of the Statute))

(2016/C 007/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

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

Re:

Two appeals against the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 14 May 2014 in Alexandrou v Commission (F-34/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:93 and F-140/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:94), seeking to have those judgments set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal in case T-516/14 P;

Sets aside, in part, in case T-515/14 P, the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Alexandrou v Commission (F-34/13) to the extent that it:

—	did not give a response to the first plea in law, in so far as it alleged failure to state reasons, in that the particular circumstances would have justified giving Mr Christodoulos Alexandrou access to the questions at issue;

—	rejected the fourth plea in law;

3.	Dismisses the remainder of the appeal in case T-515/14 P;

Dismisses the action in case F-34/13 in so far as it is based, first, on the failure to state reasons in the contested decisions in that Mr. Alexandrou raised individual circumstances justifying his access to the questions at issue and, secondly, on the plea in law alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial, alternatively, to an effective remedy;

5.	Orders each party in case T-516/14 P to bear its own costs;

6.	Orders each party in case T-515/14 P to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/26

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)

(Case T-544/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ALETE - Earlier national word mark ALETA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 007/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Terapia SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA.

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 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4);

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Société des produits Nestlé.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/26

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR)

(Case T-558/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark TRILOBULAR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (Middletown, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, G. Hollingworth, Barristers, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nedschroef Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2014 (Case R 442/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/27

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE)

(Case T-659/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Earlier designations of origin ‘porto’ and ‘port’ - Grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009))

(2016/C 007/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso de Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Harvard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery 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 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

4.	Orders Bruichladdich Distillery to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/28

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer)

(Case T-813/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer - Identical earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date - Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2016/C 007/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Min Liu (Guangzhou, China) (represented initially by R. Bailly, S. Zhang and Y. Zhang, and subsequently by Y. Zhang, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DSN Marketing Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1864/2013-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between DSN Marketing Ltd and Mr Min Liu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Min Liu to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/29

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament

(Case T-321/15) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to produce prior authorisation issued pursuant to national legislation - Proportionality - Equal Treatment - Principle of openness - Freedom to provide services))

(2016/C 007/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions, contained in the letter of 12 June 2015, by which the Parliament informed the applicants, first, of the rejection of the tender submitted by them in respect of the open tendering procedure EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons (part 1) and external surveillance (part 2) at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels (O 2014/S 246-433095) and, secondly, that the relevant contract had been awarded to another company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/29

Action brought on 1 October 2015 — VIK v Commission

(Case T-576/15)

(2016/C 007/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VIK Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e. V. (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Kahle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2014 in the proceedings ‘State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users’ C(2014)8786 final, published in the Official Journal (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122), in so far as

—	in Article 1 and Article 3(1) of the decision, the defendant classifies the support of electricity production from renewable sources and the cap on the EEG-surcharge under the EEG-Act 2012 as new aid, and

—	in Article 2, Article 3(2), Article 6 and Article 7 of the decision, the defendant declares the incompatibility of the special compensation rule with the internal market and orders the recovery of the aid;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: No advantage The applicant claims that the special compensation rule does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since no advantage is granted to energy-intensive users by the cap on the EEG-surcharge.

Second plea in law: No selectivity

The applicant also argues that the special compensation rule does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the condition of selectivity is absent. Energy-intensive users were not favoured over other users who are in a comparable factual and legal situation. In addition, the cap on the EEG-surcharge is justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the rule.

3.	Third plea in law: No resources received from the State In that regard, it is claimed that neither the nationwide compensation scheme nor the special compensation rule of the EEG-Act 2012 contained aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since there is no burden on State resources.

Fourth plea in law: No restriction on competition

In this respect, the applicant states that the cap on the EEG-surcharge merely serves to compensate for a competitive disadvantage which electricity/energy-intensive users must bear in comparison with sectors of users in other countries owing to the payment of the EEG-surcharge.

Fifth plea in law: Compatibility of the aid with the common market

The applicant claims that, if the cap on the EEG-surcharge were to be classified as aid, it would be compatible with the common market. The cap does not distort competition; rather, a competitive disadvantage for the users concerned is compensated for by this means.

6.	Sixth plea in law: No new aid The applicant also claims that, if the Court classifies the special compensation rule as aid, it is existing aid, to which the procedure under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) is not applicable.

7.	Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty The applicant submits in that regard that, by approving the EEG-Act 2000, the defendant created a legitimate expectation, which is infringed by the final decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/31

Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)

(Case T-612/15)

(2016/C 007/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark ‘Representation of three vertical stripes’ — Application for registration No 12 880 481

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2015 in Case R 2845/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

—

alter the contested decision on the basis of the arguments, contained in the present application in conjunction with the evidence and documents adduced in the first two stages of the proceedings and, without referring the case back, grant the application for registration No 12 880 481, on the ground that the contested decision must be regarded as flawed for breach, first, of the rules laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, or, second, of the rules laid down in Article 7(3) of that regulation.

In the alternative:

—	annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

—	determine the amount of the costs of the proceedings to be borne by OHIM.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/31

Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)

(Case T-613/15)

(2016/C 007/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Sfiri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—	annul Contract Notice No 2015/S 162-295659 of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, which was published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, S 162 of 22 August 2015;

—

order Frontex to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered by them in respect of the opportunity which they lost to enter into the contract announced, harm which they assess ex aequo et bono at EUR 85 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or whatever other amount the Court decides;

—	order the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay all the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants submit that the contested notice must be annulled under Article 263 TFEU because it is contrary to the principle of proportionality and of non-discrimination which governs public procurement and infringes Article 102(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (the Financial Regulation) (1) and Articles 146(1) and 147 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012. (2)

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/32

Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)

(Case T-620/15)

(2016/C 007/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orthema Service GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gehen wie auf Wolken’ — Application for registration No 13 121 868

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 404/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/33

Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)

(Case T-622/15)

(2016/C 007/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: N. Weber and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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 ‘EXHAUST-GARD’ — Application for registration No 11 747 409

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2015 in Case R 196/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

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

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/33

Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)

(Case T-628/15)

(2016/C 007/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, E. Montelione, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BiancalunA’ — Application for registration No 11 246 204

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2720/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision; and/or

—	remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;

—	in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjama’s, t-shirts, panties, undues.

Pleas in law

—	Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;

—	Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/35

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v Parliament

(Case F-26/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Installation allowance - Article 5(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to a new place of employment - Last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Non-payment of the installation allowance if an official entitled to the household allowance is transferred to the place where his family resides - Need for the official to be installed with his family in the place of employment - Spouses effectively separated - Consequences - Inapplicability of the last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations))

(2016/C 007/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FH (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and N. Chemaï, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s application to be paid the installation allowance, following his relocation from Yemen to Brussels, where his spouse, from whom he is separated, lives, and an application seeking that the defendant be ordered to pay the applicant that installation allowance together with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Annuls the decision of 15 April 2014 by which the European Parliament rejected the application for the installation allowance submitted by FH;

Orders the European Parliament to pay FH, in respect of the installation allowance due to him, a sum corresponding to one month of his basic salary; that sum is to be paid together with default interest calculated at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points, from 11 February 2014 until the date of actual payment;

3.	Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by FH.

(1) OJ C 127, 20/4/2015, p. 44.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/36

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — van der Spree v Commission

(Case F-37/15) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Termination of service - Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary - Applicant’s change of residence - Residence of the applicant’s daughter - Proof))

(2016/C 007/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel van der Spree (Eischoll, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to be paid double the resettlement allowance following his relocation to Switzerland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Declares that Mr van der Spree is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 26.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/36

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v European Parliament

(Case F-73/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Application for payment of the daily subsistence allowance - Implied rejection followed by an express rejection - No complaint against the implied rejection - Express rejection confirmatory in nature - Complaint time-barred - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 007/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FH (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and N. Chemaï, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to grant the daily subsistence allowance to the applicant following his transfer from the Commission, where he was employed in the EU Delegation to Yemen, to the European Parliament, in Brussels.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by FH.

(1) OJ C 245, 27/7/2015, p. 50.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/37

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2015 — Ayres de Abreu v EESC

(Case F-90/15)

((Civil Service - Manifest inadmissibility - Representation by a lawyer - Applicant being a lawyer - Impossible for an applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party))

(2016/C 007/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Ayres de Abreu (Cascais, Portugal)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to allow the applicant to retire.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	Mr Ayres de Abreu shall bear his own costs.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/37

Action brought on 23 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-135/15)

(2016/C 007/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Sahki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AST/130/14 not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage, on the ground that he did not have the required level of studies and professional experience of a minimum of six years related to the nature of the work.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the contested decision of 16 June 2014 [of] the President of the Competition selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), following the application of 1 April 2014;

—	Annul the review decision of 4 December 2014 [of] the President of the EPSO competition selection board, following the request for review of 16 June 2014;

—	Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2015 rejecting the claim of 3 March 2015, R/10/15;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

11.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/38

Action brought on 3 November 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-139/15)

(2016/C 007/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions by which it refused to recognise that the invalidity suffered by the applicant is occupational in origin and claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 2 December 2014, served on 6 January 2015, in so far as it accepts the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee and so refuses to recognise that the invalidity suffered by the applicant is occupational in origin within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

—	Annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 24 July 2015, served on 27 July 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim;

—	Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the sum of EUR 25 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;

—	Order the Committee of the Regions to pay all the costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 7

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 59 11 January 2016

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2016/C 007/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1
2016/C 007/02	Taking of the oath by the new Members of the Court of Justice	2
2016/C 007/03	Election of the President of the Court	2
2016/C 007/04	Election of the Vice-President of the Court	2
2016/C 007/05	Appointment of the First Advocate General	2
2016/C 007/06	Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges	2
2016/C 007/07	Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges	3
2016/C 007/08	Decisions adopted by the Court in its Special General Meeting on 12 October 2015	3
2016/C 007/09	Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court	5
2016/C 007/10	Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court	7
2016/C 007/11	Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 193 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court	7
2016/C 007/12	Taking of the oath by a new Member of the General Court	7

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2016/C 007/13	Case C-367/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Stowarzyszenie Oławska Telewizja Kablowa, Oława v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, Warsaw	8
2016/C 007/14	Case C-535/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2015 — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle	9
2016/C 007/15	Case C-540/15: Action brought on 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic	9
2016/C 007/16	Case C-546/15: Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany	10
2016/C 007/17	Case C-549/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet	11
2016/C 007/18	Case C-557/15: Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Malta	11
2016/C 007/19	Case C-589/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alexios Anagnostakis against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2015 by the General Court (First Chamber) in Case T-450/12 Anagnostakis v Commission	12
	General Court
2016/C 007/20	Case T-74/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mecafer v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)	15
2016/C 007/21	Case T-76/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)	15
2016/C 007/22	Case T-499/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C and HSH Investment Holdings FSO v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Restructuring of HSH Nordbank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions — Action for annulment — Lack of individual concern — Minority shareholder of the aid beneficiary — Concept of distinctive interest — Partial inadmissibility — capital dilution)	16
2016/C 007/23	Case T-106/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Early termination of contracts — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Good faith — Non-contractual liability — Reclassification of the action — Coexisting applications for contractual and non-contractual liability — Early warning system (EWS) — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link)	17
2016/C 007/24	Case T-253/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex (IRAP) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark IRAP — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)	18
2016/C 007/25	Case T-255/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat rate financial corrections — Direct payments — Conditionality — Aid for the processing of citrus fruit — Conditions for accreditation of a paying agency)	18
2016/C 007/26	Case T-361/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Menelaus v OHIM — Garcia Mahiques (VIGOR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIGOR — Earlier Community figurative mark and earlier international figurative mark VIGAR — Admissibility of evidence of use submitted on a CD-ROM — Taking into account of additional evidence which was not submitted within the time-limit set — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)	19
2016/C 007/27	Case T-449/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark WISENT — Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the marks — Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	20
2016/C 007/28	Case T-450/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA — Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	21
2016/C 007/29	Case T-508/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA — Earlier unregistered figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA — Relative ground for refusal — Absence of rights to the earlier sign having been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State before the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Use of the earlier mark as a label — Common-law action for passing off — Lack of goodwill)	21
2016/C 007/30	Case T-544/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Dyson v Commission (Directive 2010/30/EU — Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Competence of the Commission — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)	22
2016/C 007/31	Case T-550/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Reasonable period — Absence of key controls — Extrapolation of the findings of default)	23
2016/C 007/32	Case T-606/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (Mustang) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Mustang — Earlier national word and figurative marks MUSTANG — No risk of detriment to the reputation of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009)	23
2016/C 007/33	Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest)	24
2016/C 007/34	Joined Cases T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Alexandrou v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Recruitment — Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Obligation to state reasons — Access to documents — Refusal of the request for access to the multiple-choice questions posed in the admission tests — Confidential nature of the Selection Board Proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Competence of the Civil Service Tribunal — Article 270 TFEU — Concept of act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(2) of the Statute)	25
2016/C 007/35	Case T-544/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALETE — Earlier national word mark ALETA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)	26
2016/C 007/36	Case T-558/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark TRILOBULAR — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)	26
2016/C 007/37	Case T-659/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE — Earlier designations of origin porto and port — Grounds for invalidity — Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009)	27
2016/C 007/38	Case T-813/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Case for a portable computer) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a case for a portable computer — Identical earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of earlier designs prior to the priority date — Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002)	28
2016/C 007/39	Case T-321/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to produce prior authorisation issued pursuant to national legislation — Proportionality — Equal Treatment — Principle of openness — Freedom to provide services)	29
2016/C 007/40	Case T-576/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — VIK v Commission	29
2016/C 007/41	Case T-612/15: Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)	31
2016/C 007/42	Case T-613/15: Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)	31
2016/C 007/43	Case T-620/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)	32
2016/C 007/44	Case T-622/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)	33
2016/C 007/45	Case T-628/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)	33
	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2016/C 007/46	Case F-26/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Installation allowance — Article 5(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to a new place of employment — Last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Non-payment of the installation allowance if an official entitled to the household allowance is transferred to the place where his family resides — Need for the official to be installed with his family in the place of employment — Spouses effectively separated — Consequences — Inapplicability of the last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)	35
2016/C 007/47	Case F-37/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — van der Spree v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Termination of service — Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary — Applicant’s change of residence — Residence of the applicant’s daughter — Proof)	36
2016/C 007/48	Case F-73/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v European Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Application for payment of the daily subsistence allowance — Implied rejection followed by an express rejection — No complaint against the implied rejection — Express rejection confirmatory in nature — Complaint time-barred — Manifest inadmissibility)	36
2016/C 007/49	Case F-90/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2015 — Ayres de Abreu v EESC (Civil Service — Manifest inadmissibility — Representation by a lawyer — Applicant being a lawyer — Impossible for an applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party)	37
2016/C 007/50	Case F-135/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission	37
2016/C 007/51	Case F-136/15: Action brought on 29 October 2015 — ZZ v Parliament	38
2016/C 007/52	Case F-139/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions	38