26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/2

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2013/C 313/05

On 17 September 2013, the General Court decided to set up nine Chambers of five Judges and nine Chambers of three Judges for the period from 17 September 2013 to 31 August 2016 and, on 23 September 2013, decided to assign the Judges for the period from 23 September 2013 to 31 August 2016 as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Kanninen, Vice-President, Ms Pelikánová, Ms Jürimäe, Mr Buttigieg and Mr Gervasoni, Judges.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Kanninen, Vice-President;

Ms Pelikánová, Judge;

Mr Buttigieg, Judge.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Forwood, Ms Jürimäe, Mr Bieliūnas, and Mr Gervasoni, Judges.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;

Ms Jürimäe, Judge

Mr Gervasoni, Judge.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Mr Forwood, Ms Labucka, Mr Bieliūnas and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;

Mr Forwood, Judge;

Mr Bieliūnas, Judge.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Kreuschitz, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber;

Ms Labucka, Judge;

Mr Kreuschitz, Judge.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Mr Schwarcz, Ms Tomljenović and Mr Collins, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber;

Mr Schwarcz, Judge;

Ms Tomljenović, Judge.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Collins and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber;

Mr Dehousse, Judge;

Mr Collins, Judge.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Kancheva, Mr Wetter and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr van der Woude, President of the Chamber;

Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge;

Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judge.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Mr Popescu, Ms Kancheva and Mr Wetter, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber;

Ms Kancheva, Judge;

Mr Wetter, Judge.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges :

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber, Mr Czúcz, Ms Pelikánová, Mr Popescu and Mr Buttigieg, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges :

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber;

Mr Czúcz, Judge;

Mr Popescu, Judge.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/4

Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers

2013/C 313/06

On 23 September 2013, the General Court laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 23 September 2013 to 31 August 2016, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

1.	Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

2.	Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

—	for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

—	for cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

—	for all other cases.

The President of the General Court may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/6

Composition of the Chambers and attachment of the Judges to Chambers

2013/C 313/11

By decision of 30 November 2005, (1) the Tribunal decided to sit in three Chambers and as a full Court. By decision of 8 October 2013, for the period from 8 October 2013 to 30 September 2014, the Tribunal attached the Judges to the Chambers as follows:

First Chamber

H. KREPPEL, President of Chamber,

E. PERILLO and R. BARENTS, Judges,

Second Chamber

M.I. ROFES I PUJOL, President of Chamber,

K. BRADLEY and J. SVENNINGSEN, Judges,

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges

S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH, President of the Tribunal,

E. PERILLO, R. BARENTS, K. BRADLEY and J. SVENNINGSEN, Judges.

In the Third Chamber, the President will sit, alternately, either with Judges E. Perillo and J. Svenningsen or with Judges R. Barents and K. Bradley, subject always to connections between cases.

(1) OJ 2005 C 322, p. 16.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2013 — Rotondo and Others v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana

(Case C-407/13)

2013/C 313/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Francesco Rotondo and Others

Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Questions referred

1.	Are the clauses of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70 (1) applicable to maritime labour and, in particular, does clause 2(1) thereof also cover workers engaged for a fixed term on ferries making daily crossings?

Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Article 332 of the Italian Navigation Code) that provides that the ‘duration’ of the contract, rather than its ‘term’, is to be indicated, and is it compatible with that directive to provide for the duration of the contract by indicating a terminating point that is definite as regards the question whether it exists (‘a maximum of 78 days’) but indefinite as regards the question of when it occurs?

Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Articles 325, 326 and 332 of the Italian Navigation Code) in which the objective reasons for a fixed-term contract are expressed simply in terms of the voyage or voyages to be made, in essence equating the purpose of the contract (the service provided) with its cause (the reasons for fixing a term)?

Does the framework agreement implemented by the directive preclude national legislation (in the present case the rules of the Italian Navigation Code) that, in the event of the use of successive contracts (in such a way as to be considered abusive for the purposes of clause 5) excludes the transformation of those contracts into contracts of indefinite duration (as provided by Article 326 of the Italian Navigation Code only in situations in which the seaman works continuously for more than a year and in situations in which the period between the ending of one contract and the drawing-up of the following contract is no more than 60 days)?

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2013 — Napolitano and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

(Case C-418/13)

2013/C 313/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Carla Napolitano, Salvatore Vittorio Perrella, Gaetano Romano, Donatella Cittadino, Gemma Zangari

Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

Questions referred

Must clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to Council Directive No 1999/70/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 4(1) infine and (11) of Law No 124 of 3 May 1999 adopting urgent provisions concerning school employees (Legge No 124, disposizioni urgenti in material di personale scolastico) which, after laying down rules on the allocation of annual replacements for ‘posts that are in fact vacant and free by 31 December’, goes on to provide that this is to be done by allocating annual replacements ‘pending the completion of competition procedures for the recruitment of permanent members of the teaching staff’ — a provision that permits fixed-term contracts to be used without a definite period being fixed for completing the competition, and in a clause that provides no right to compensation for damage?

Do the requirements of the organisation of the Italian school system set out above constitute objective reasons within the meaning of clause 5(1) of Directive No 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 of such a kind as to render compatible with the law of the European Union legislation, such as the Italian legislation, that does not provide a right to compensation for damage in respect of the appointment of school staff on fixed-term contracts?

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Netto Marken Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-420/13)

2013/C 313/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Netto Marken Discount AG & Co. KG

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Questions referred

1.	Is Article 2 of the directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a service within the meaning of this provision also encompasses retail trading in services?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the content of the services offered by the retailer must be specified in exactly the same way as the goods that a retailer markets?

(a)

Does it suffice for the purposes of specification of the services if

(aa)	just the field of services in general or general indications,

(bb)	just the class(es) or

(cc)	each specific individual service

is stated?

(b)	Do these details then take part in determining the date of filing or is it possible, where general indications or classes are stated, to make substitutions or additions?

3.	If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of trade mark protection afforded to retail services extends even to services rendered by the retailer himself?

(1) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Apple, Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-421/13)

2013/C 313/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apple, Inc.

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Questions referred

1.	Is Article 2 of the Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the possibility of protection for the ‘packaging of goods’ also extends to the layout in which a service is incorporated?

2.	Are Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a sign representing the layout in which the service is incorporated is capable of being registered as a trade mark?

Is Article 2 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of graphic representability is satisfied by a drawn representation alone or with such additions as a description of the layout or indications of absolute dimensions in metres or of relative dimensions with indications as to proportions?

4.	Is Article 2 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the scale of the protection afforded by a trade mark for retail services also extends to the goods produced by the retailer itself?

(1) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato/Italy lodged on 26 July 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

(Case C-428/13)

2013/C 313/16

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS)

Defendant: Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

Question referred

Do Article 8(2) of Directive 95/59/EC (1) of 27 December 1995 and Article 7(2) of Directive 2011/64/EU (2) of 21 June 2011, by providing, respectively, that the proportional rate and ad valorem rate, and the amount of the specific excise duty, ‘must be the same for all cigarettes’, preclude a provision of national law such as Article 39g(4) of Legislative Decree No 504 of 26 October 1995 (as amended by Article 55(2a)[(c)] of Decree-Law No 78 of 31 May 2010, converted, with amendments, in Law No 122 of 30 July 2010), which provides that the excise duty payable on cigarettes with a retail selling price less than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category is to be 115 % of the basic amount, thereby establishing an excise duty at a fixed minimum rate specific to cigarettes with a lower selling price and not a minimum amount of excise duty for all price categories of cigarettes, as permitted by Article 16(7) of Directive 95/59/EC and Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/64/EU?

(1) Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40).

(2) Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/9

Appeal brought on 1 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2013 in Case T-146/09: Parker ITR Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp v Commission

(Case C-434/13 P)

2013/C 313/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the Judgment insofar as it annuls the Decision and adjusts the fine;

—	dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;

—	require the Applicants to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises two grounds of appeal, and requests the Judgment to be partially set aside insofar as it annuls the Decision in Case COMP/39406 — Marine Hoses and adjusts the fine.

In the first ground of appeal it is submitted that the General Court erred in law by ignoring or incorrectly applying the case law on intra-group economic succession on the one hand and the case law on the transfer of liability between consecutive undertakings on the other hand. By treating the asset transfer from ITR to Parker ITR (at the time called ITR Rubber) (within the Saiag group) and the subsequent share deal (transfer of the shares in Parker ITR from Saiag to Parker-Hannifin) together, the General Court incorrectly assumes an inter-group transfer of the infringing business from Saiag to Parker-Hannifin. The General Court errs by assessing economic continuity only as a possible transfer of liability between the independent undertakings Saiag and Parker-Hannifin, because this ignores the already accomplished intra-group economic succession to Parker ITR. In doing so, the Judgment relies on subjective intentions, namely the fact that the incorporation of the marine hoses business into Parker ITR was part of an objective of selling that subsidiary's shares to a third party. However, such intentions of the parties are not an obstacle to applying the case-law on intra-group economic succession (C-204/00 P Aalborg, C-280/06 ETI, C-511/11 P Versalis, T-43/02 Jungbunzlauer and T-405/06 and Joined Cases C-201/09 P and C-216/09 P ArcelorMittal), according to which economic succession takes place at the time of an intra-group transfer insofar as there are ‘structural links’ between the transferor (here: Saiag/ITR) and the receiving entity (here: Parker ITR). Moreover, there is a difference in law between a transfer of assets and the transfer of a legal person. In the latter case, the transferred entity will carry its own liability for any infringement prior to the transfer, and this may include liability as economic successor for assets transferred to the entity at a time when it was still part of the infringing undertaking. The fact that other legal entities in the undertaking could also have been held liable (although not fined in this case) is not a valid reason to exclude holding liable as economic successor the transferred subsidiary Parker ITR.

The second ground of appeal is that, in the context of the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the General Court acted ultra petita and unlawfully reduced the uplift for duration in the fine corresponding to EUR 100 000 for the parent company Parker Hannifin. Neither the actual duration of its participation in the infringement nor the corresponding duration factor in the calculation of the fine was challenged by Parker-Hannifin (or Parker ITR). While Parker-Hannifin successfully challenged the aggravating circumstance for leadership, for which the General Court adjusted the fine, this should not open the possibility for the General Court, even when it exercises its unlimited jurisdiction, to modify other aspects of the fine (here: the factor for duration) against which the applicant did not raise a plea.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2013 — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

(Case C-441/13)

2013/C 313/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pez Hejduk

Defendant: EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning an infringement of rights related to copyright which is alleged to have been committed in that a photograph was kept accessible on a website, the website being operated under the top-level domain of a Member State other than that in which the proprietor of the right is domiciled, there is jurisdiction only

—	in the Member State in which the alleged infringer is established; and

—	in the Member State(s) to which the website, according to its content, is directed?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/10

Appeal brought on 7 August 2013 by Delphi Technologies, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-515/11: Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-448/13 P)

2013/C 313/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (represented by: C. Albrecht, J. Heumann, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the decision T-515/11 of the General Court dated 6 June 2013, annul the contested decision as far as it rejected the appeal brought by the appellant against the examiner’s decision of 25 August 2010 and order that the OHIM shall pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal is directed against the decision T-515/11 of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union dismissing an action for annulment against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal confirming the rejection of the CTM application ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’.

The appeal is based on three pleas:

1.	The General Court violated Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR (1) by not determining the relevant public and their degree of awareness properly. The goods are exclusively directed at professionals who have a high degree of awareness with respect to promotional slogans.

The General Court further violated Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR by applying too strict a test in assessing whether the mark applied for had a distinctive character. In particular, the General Court misunderstood the guidelines laid down in the more recent case law, and, in particular, in Case C-398/08 P, Audi v OHIM.

Thirdly the General Court violated the general principles of equal treatment and sound administration, which are basic principles for the proper administration of the EU. The fact that the OHIM registered slogans with an identical structure containing the word ‘INNOVATION’ in the past should be taken into account, even though the previous decisions are not binding.

The applicant submits that the contested decision should, therefore, be set aside and that the inherent distinctiveness of the slogan ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’ should be affirmed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 27 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 12 August 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus and Others

(Case C-449/13)

2013/C 313/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CA Consumer Finance

Defendants: Ingrid Bakkaus, Charline Bonato, née Savary, Florian Bonato

Questions referred

Must Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as meaning that the onus is on creditors to prove that they have correctly and fully performed their obligations under the national law transposing the directive when a credit agreement is entered into and performed?

Does Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers preclude a creditor from being able to prove that it has performed its obligations correctly and in full solely by means of a standard term in the credit agreement, whereby the consumer acknowledges the performance of those obligations, without that term being supported by documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?

Must Article 8 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements (1) be interpreted as precluding the creditworthiness check from being carried out solely on the basis of information supplied by the consumer, without such information being effectively scrutinised against other evidence?

—

Must Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for a creditor to provide adequate explanations to the consumer if it has not checked the consumer’s financial situation and needs beforehand?

—	Must Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC be interpreted as precluding the adequate explanations to be supplied to the consumer being provided only in the contractual information mentioned in the credit agreement, without a specific document being drawn up?

(1) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/12

Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Donaldson Filtration GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-396/11 ultra air GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-450/13 P)

2013/C 313/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Donaldson Filtration GmbH (represented by: N. Siebertz, M. Teworte-Vey, and A. Revert, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), ultra air GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case T-396/11 and, consequently, dismiss the action brought by ultra air GmbH against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18 May 2011 in Case R 374/2010-4;

—	order ultra air GmbH to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The main grounds of the appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court are as follows:

Failure to assess the alleged abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed an error of law in failing to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice pursuant to which an abuse of rights, which is a generally applicable concept of law, which permits and requires an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case, must also be observed in relation to Community trade mark law. It claims that, on the contrary, the General Court limited itself to finding that the proceedings under Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) constitute a ‘Popularantrag’ (an administrative application which may be made by any legal person) and, thus, did not asses the specific circumstances of the case at issue.

In doing so, the General Court failed to have regard to the fact that, although the legislature intended invalidity proceedings brought against a mark under Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be a ‘Popularantrag’, this does not preclude, however, consideration of the alleged abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law which is also to be observed under Community law.

The exclusion of claims of an abuse of rights is not the same as the introduction of a requirement that positive evidence be furnished by the applicant for invalidity of a need for legal protection and, consequently, does not have the effect that the right to bring an action is limited by the adoption of addition requirements. Moreover, the fact that the legislature has made invalidity proceedings subject to application and that a court cannot declare a registered trade mark invalid of its own motion militate in favour of the interpretation that claims of an abuse of rights should be observed in the context of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Failure to assess the specific circumstances of the individual case

Since the General Court failed to recognise the objection of an abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law, the specific circumstances of the present case, which illustrate that ultra air GmbH abused its rights in seeking a declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘ultrafilter international’ (Community trade mark No 001121839), were not assessed.

In using the sign at issue itself, the applicant for invalidity seeks to exploit for itself the notoriety of the mark in respect of which it seeks invalidity, by intentionally misleading the target public to believe that it was a traditional mark of the appellant’s renowned predecessor.

Moreover, the General Court failed to assess to a sufficient degree the role of ultra air GmbH’s director as the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘ultrafilter international’ (Community trade mark No 001121839). While employed by the appellant he was personally responsible for the proceedings concerning the registration of the mark which he is now challenging. All of the documents to be submitted in registration proceedings as evidence of use of the contested mark in trade were produced by him personally and were, in part, even drafted by him and fell within his exclusive area of competence.

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

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek

(Case C-454/13)

2013/C 313/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgacom SA

Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

Question referred

Must Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’) (1) be interpreted as precluding the introduction, for budgetary purposes, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile communications infrastructures, installed on public or private property, used to carry on activities provided for in the general authorisation?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/13

Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Repsol, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-89/12 Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses ®

(Case C-466/13 P)

2013/C 313/23

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Repsol, SA (represented by: L. Montoya Terán and J. Devaureix, abogados)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 in Case T-89/12, notified on 28 June 2013;

—	uphold all of the forms of order sought at first instance;

—	order the respondent to pay the costs.

Ground of appeal and main arguments

1.	In relation to a certain practice of OHIM in registering marks and of the case-law of the General Court, corrective action is required which applies in an effective manner the reciprocal relationship between the distinctive character of an earlier mark and its scope of protection.

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court contradicted itself in its reasoning and the conclusions which it reached in relation to the lack of similarity between the signs (it considered that they have more differences than similarities, though recognised that they are similar) and the weak or lack of distinctiveness of the earlier mark (it considered that it was a weak mark, but failed to take account of that weakness when assessing whether there was a likelihood of confusion).

3.	The General Court ignored the fact that the essential and distinctive characteristics of the opposing mark (capital letter ‘R’ inside a circle) cannot be monopolised by any third party. Consequently, the requirement that usual signs be made available on the market has not been respected.

4.	The General Court failed to take account of judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court in similar cases. Account should be taken of those cases since they adopt the point of view of the relevant consumer, namely the Spanish consumer.

5.	It is clear from the above that the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by legal errors. It must thus be set aside in accordance with the form of order sought.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/13

Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-496/13 P)

2013/C 313/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	Set aside the decision of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 in Case R 2109/2010-1;

—	Order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward as its single ground of appeal the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and failure to have regard to the rules of evidence in the application of that provision.

In support of that ground of appeal the appellant submits:

In comparing the signs the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment doctrine because it made a sweeping comparison of the elements ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in doing so left out all the other elements of the marks.

In particular, the General Court would, if it had applied the global assessment doctrine correctly, have had to attach more importance to some of the other elements of the marks at issue, inter alia the combination of colours in the disputed mark and the opposing mark and the description ‘LA’ in the opposing mark and ‘brunes’ in the disputed mark.

In addition, the General Court incorrectly applied the principles set out by the Court of Justice in respect of conceptual similarity as it did not take sufficient account of the different languages of the marks.

Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard to the rules of evidence set out in the Rules of Procedure in that it made assumptions with regard to the pronunciation of the mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ without evidence and based the decision on them.

All in all, the General Court thus came to an incorrect conclusion.

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

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-73/08) (1)

(Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphne II programme - Determination of the amount of the final grant - Debit note - Measure open to challenge - Obligation to state reasons - Fair trial - Errors of assessment)

2013/C 313/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented: initially by B. Henning, then U. Claus and M. Uhmann, and finally by C. Otto, S. Reichmann and L.-J. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by S. Grünheid and B. Simon, then S. Grünheid and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in the debit note of 26 November 2007, in which it requested the applicant to repay the sum of EUR 23 228,07 which the Commission paid to the applicant pursuant to the Daphne Grant Agreement (JLS/DAP/2004-1/080/YC).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-142/08) (1)

(Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)

2013/C 313/26

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by: N. Díaz Abad and J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

Re:

Application for annulment of Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the field of fraud prevention (OJ 2008 C16A, pp. 1 and 16 respectively) on the ground that they were published in French, English and German only.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list of Administrators (AD8) and Principal Administrators (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention and EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list of Assistants (AST4) in the same field, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008;

2.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-164/08) (1)

(Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of doctors - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)

2013/C 313/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by N. Díaz Abad and J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

Re:

Application for annulment of Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD 7 and AD 9) to constitute a reserve list of doctors, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 February 2008 (OJ 2008 C 48 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the notices of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD 7 and AD 9) to constitute a reserve list of doctors, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 February 2008;

2.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/16

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-380/08) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request seeking to obtain access to certain confidential passages of the final decision of the Commission relating to a cartel - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination - Exception concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Overriding public interest - Sincere cooperation)

2013/C 313/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Mol and M. de Ree, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 30 June 2008 refusing access to certain confidential passages of Decision C(2006) 4090 final (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)),

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action.

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

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/16

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Poste Italiane v Commission

(Case T-525/08) (1)

(State aid - Remuneration of funds from postal accounts placed with the Italian Treasury - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Advantage)

2013/C 313/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Poste Italiane SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, A. Sandulli and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/178/EC of 16 July 2008 on the State aid C 42/06 (ex NN 52/06) implemented by Italy to remunerate current accounts held by Poste Italiane with the State Treasury (OJ 2009 L 64, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Decision 2009/178/EC of 16 July 2008 on the State aid C 42/06 (ex NN 52/06) implemented by Italy to remunerate current accounts held by Poste Italiane with the State Treasury;

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

(1) OJ C 44, 21.1.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/17

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Huvis v Council

(Case T-536/08) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in South Korea - Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2013/C 313/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Huvis Corp. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented: initially by J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, and subsequently by J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently by G. Berrisch, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: intially by M. França and H. van Vliet, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008 maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 247, p. 1), as regards the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Huvis Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/17

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council

(Case T-537/08) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in China - Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2013/C 313/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi, China); Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd (Jiangyin, China); NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd (Jiangyin); Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd (Cixi); and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd (Fuyang, China) (represented initially by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and G. Vallera, Barrister, and subsequently by J.-F. Bellis, A. Scalini and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. França and H. van Vliet, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it has been brought by Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd;

2.	Dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it has been brought by Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd and Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd;

Orders Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber, Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre, NingBo Dafa Chemical Fiber, Xiake Color Spinning, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and severally, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/18

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total v Commission

(Case T-548/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties - Presumption of innocence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds nearly 100 % of the shares)

2013/C 313/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Total SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/18

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission

(Case T-566/08) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Proof of the existence of the cartel - Concept of a single and continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Interruption of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Equal treatment - Presumption of innocence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Proportionality - Rounding method - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2013/C 313/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Total Raffinage Marketing (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Falmagne, C. Lemaire and S. Naudin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), and, in the alternative, application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Orders the fine imposed on Total Raffinage Marketing in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes) to be set at EUR 125 459 842;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Total Raffinage Marketing to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs of the European Commission. The European Commission is to bear one-tenth of its own costs and to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by Total Raffinage Marketing.

(1) OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/19

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-126/09) (1)

(Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)

2013/C 313/34

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009 (OJ 2009, C 9 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 in the field of public health, EPSO/AD/145/09 in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) and EPSO/AD/146/09 in the field of food safety (audit, inspection and assessment), to constitute a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 14 January 2009;

2.	Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/19

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-218/09) (1)

(Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of assistants - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)

2013/C 313/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Drēviņa, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AST/91/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field, and EPSO/AST/92/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 March 2009 (OJ 2009 C 63 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AST/91/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field, and EPSO/AST/92/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008;

2.	Orders the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/20

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-347/09) (1)

(State aid - Transfer free of charge of certain areas of natural national heritage - Measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects - Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market - Concept of undertaking - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by M. Lumma and B. Klein, then A. Wiedmann and T. Henze, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by K. Gross, then F. Erlbacher, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and P. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented: initally by C. Wissels, Y. de Vries and M. de Ree, then C. Wissels, M. de Ree, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents); and Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5080 final of 2 July 2009 relating to State aid NN 8/2009 granted by the Federal Republic of Germany and concerning the State aid scheme consisting of the transfer, free of charge, of certain areas of natural national heritage, and of measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects (OJ 2009 C 230, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/20

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt v OHIM — Castel Frères (CASTEL)

(Case T-320/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CASTEL - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility - Absolute ground for refusal not put forward before the Board of Appeal - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 313/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell (Castell, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Castel Frères SAS (Blanquefort, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2010 (Case R 962/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell and Castel Frères SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2010 (Case R 962/2009-2);

2.	Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell;

3.	Orders Castel Frères SAS to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission

(Case T-551/10) (1)

(State aid - Subsidy for the takeover of a thermoelectric power plant and conversion thereof into a biofuel power plant - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application ratione temporis of the guidelines on national regional aid - Legitimate expectations - Incentive effect)

2013/C 313/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fri-El Acerra Srl (Acerra, Italy) (represented by: M. Todino and P. Fattori, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and P. Manzini, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/110/EU of 15 September 2010 on State aid C 8/09 (ex N 357/08) which Italy intends to grant to Fri-El Acerra Srl (OJ 2011 L 46, p. 28).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Fri-El Acerra Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-111/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Studies received by the Commission concerning the transposition of directives on the environment - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Specific and individual assessment - Compatibility with the Aarhus Convention - Overriding public interest - Consequences of exceeding the period for the adoption of an express decision - Extent of the obligation actively to disseminate environmental information)

2013/C 313/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver and C. Zadra, Agents)

Re:

Application, initially, for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents on the conformity of the Member States’ legislation with European Union environmental law and then for annulment of the Commission’s subsequent express decision of 30 May 2011 refusing in part access to some of those documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders ClientEarth and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/21

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA

(Case T-214/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market - Refusal of access - Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Re:

Application, initially, for annulment of the EFSA decision of 10 February 2011 refusing an application for access, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market and, subsequently, for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 12 December 2011 withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, except for the names of the external experts who made certain comments on the draft guidance document.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)	Dismisses the action;

2)	Orders ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/22

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-264/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2007 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Psychological harassment - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages)

2013/C 313/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, and subsequently by Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-59/09 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-59/09 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claims seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of his harassment by the EIB;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

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

4.	Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/22

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Besselink v Council

(Case T-331/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Partial access - Obligation to state reasons - Application for measures of organisation of procedure or inquiry - Inadmissible)

2013/C 313/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Leonard Besselink (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by C. Fekete, P. Plaza García and J. Herrmann, and subsequently by P. Plaza García, J. Herrmann and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Council Decision of 1 April 2011 refusing access in full to document 9689/10, containing a draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the Council Decision of 1 April 2011 refusing full access to document 9689/10 in that it refuses access to Negotiating Directive No 5 and to the undisclosed parts of the requested document, which set out the principles laid down in the EU Treaty that should govern negotiations for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, or which only set out the questions to be addressed in the negotiations;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/23

Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission

(Case T-380/11) (1)

(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 313/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Politika, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2.	Orders Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/23

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-383/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 313/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented: initially by P. Grollet and G. Karouni, and subsequently by G. Karouni and C. Rygaert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), and of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Eyad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/23

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-418/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal to reimburse medical expenses - Request to designate an independent doctor - Reasonable period - Rejection of a request to institute arbitration proceedings - Claim for setting aside - Claim for reimbursement of medical expenses - Lis pendens)

2013/C 313/45

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-49/10 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) in Case F-49/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claims seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejecting his request to designate a third doctor;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

3.	Annuls the EIB’s decision rejecting, on the ground of having been submitted out of time, Mr De Nicola’s request to designate a third doctor;

4.	Orders Mr De Nicola and the EIB to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission

(Case T-457/11) (1)

(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 313/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of the Commission of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 163, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2.	Orders Valeo Vision to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)

(Case T-492/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

2013/C 313/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant:‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Stütz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2011 (Case R 2168/2010-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sanitary tampon as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council

(Case T-563/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Burden of proof - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure by default - Application to intervene - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 313/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M.-M. Joséphidès, then R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and A. Vitro, Agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), of Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), of Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and, second, application for payment of compensation for damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application for leave to intervene;

2.	Dismisses the application;

3.	Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/25

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council

(Case T-592/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Presumption of innocence - Burden of proof - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 313/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M.-M. Joséphidès, then R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and A. Vitro, Agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), of Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and of Council Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 Implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p.3) in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and, second, application for payment of compensation for damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the application;

2.	Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to pay his own costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/25

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-618/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2008 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Scope of review - Assessment report - Plea of illegality - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages - Lis pendens)

2013/C 313/50

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claim seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB);

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

3.	Dismisses the action brought by Mr De Nicola before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-13/10;

4.	Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and half of the costs incurred by the EIB relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal;

5.	Orders the EIB to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/26

Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others

(Case T-383/13)

2013/C 313/51

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Antonios Chatzianagnostou (Serres, Greece) (represented by: X. Makris, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

entirely annul, first, the decision dated 10/05/2013 of the Head of Mission of EULEX Kosovo headed ‘Final decision on disciplinary case 02/2013’, notice of which was received by the applicant on 16/05/2013, and, second, the decision dated 10/05/2013 of the Head of Mission of EULEX Kosovo headed ‘Final decision on disciplinary case 06/2013’ notice of which was received by the applicant on 16/05/2013;

—	exonerate him of each of the disciplinary charges brought against him by Eulex;·

—	order Eulex to produce in these proceedings copies of all documents which are contained in his disciplinary files at issue,·and

—	order the defendants to pay the legal costs and the remuneration of his legal representative.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea concerns the infringement of an essential procedural requirement by reason of the complete absence of a statement of reasons for the contested acts and also the infringement of Article 296 TFEU and the general legal principles of the Member States of the European Union, in accordance with which reasons which are sufficient, full and specific must be stated for administrative acts adversely affecting an individual. In this case, the applicant maintains that a statement of reasons for the contested acts is wholly non-existent, even though it is an essential legal requirement.

The second plea concerns the infringement by the defendants by means of the contested acts of the applicant’s rights of defence, which are derived from ECHR and the general legal principles common to the Member States of the European Union. The applicant, in the framework of the disciplinary case against him No 6/2013 within EULEX, was found guilty of a disciplinary offence in respect of an act by him, but he received no written notice of the charges and was denied the ability to speak in his defence. Further, the applicant was deprived of his right to have full, timely and effective access to legal assistance and thus readily to defend himself with the aid of a legal representative of his choice, appropriately briefed, with full knowledge of the disciplinary procedures against him within EULEX.

The third plea concerns the claim that the contested acts contain errors in relation to the facts. The applicant maintains that the second contested act is based on suppositions and contradictory or inadequate reasons, thereby contravening the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence and his right not to incriminate himself. Further, that contested act is in error in that no account was taken of either the fact that the applicant committed a pardonable error of law or, at the least, the mitigating circumstances of his active repentance and remorse.

The fourth plea concerns an infringement of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 ECHR, Article 15 TFEU, Regulation 1049/2001/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, (1) Directive 2003/98/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 Νοvember 2003 (2) and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant submits that the contested decisions of the EULEX Head of Mission, which confirmed the proposed disciplinary penalties to be imposed on the applicant, erred in law, because, if they were correct, they would have deemed admissible the applications brought by the applicant for their rescission on the ground, inter alia, of contravention of the above provisions relating to the applicant’s right to have access to the documents at issue in the two disciplinary cases against him within EULEX.

5.	The fifth plea concerns the infringement by the contested acts of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equity in respect of assessment of the extent of the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant.

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

(2) Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/27

Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-386/13)

2013/C 313/52

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicants: Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB (District of Kėdainiai, Lithuania) and 134 others (represented by: I. Vėgėlė, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—	declare the applicants’ action admissible;

—	pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 authorising the making of complementary national direct payments in Lithuania for 2012 (notified under document number K(2012) 4391);

—

in Article 132 of Regulation No 73/2009, an article governing complementary national direct payments and direct payments, declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the final subparagraph of paragraph 2 which provides that ‘[t]he total direct support which a farmer may be granted in the new Member States after accession under the relevant direct payment, including all complementary national direct payments, shall not exceed the level of direct support a farmer would be entitled to receive under the corresponding direct payment then applicable to the Member States in the Member States other than the new Member States, taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’;

—	in Article 10 of Regulation No 73/2009, an article laying down special rules for modulation in the new Member States, declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the provision in paragraph 1 ‘… taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’;

—	order the defendants to pay all the costs incurred by the applicants, regarding which evidence will be submitted to the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Lack of reasoning for, and of foundation of, Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final

Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 lacks reasoning and foundation because there are no data confirming that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the new and old Member States of the European Union is uniform (equalised).

Level of direct payments in the Republic of Lithuania not corresponding to the level agreed in the Act of Accession and to the level of direct payments of the old Member States

The Republic of Lithuania’s actual level of direct payments does not correspond to the level agreed in the Act of Accession of 23 September 2003. In breach of the Act of Accession, Regulation No 583/2004 of 22 March 2004 adopted amendments to Regulation No 1782/2003, laying down national agricultural support ceilings for the new Member States (Article 71c of and Annex VIIIa to Regulation No 1782/2003).

In 2012 the direct payment percentage in the Republic of Lithuania did not equalise with the direct payment level of the old Member States of the European Union: in the old Member States modulation is applied only to sums exceeding EUR 5 000 and that means that not all direct payments allocated to farmers of the old Member States are modulated (reduced) by 10 %, but only those which exceed EUR 5 000. Therefore, it is unfounded and unlawful to state that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the old Member States is 90 % (‘100% minus 10 % modulation’). The level of direct payments in the old Member States is greater than 90 % because a proportion of the sums — not exceeding EUR 5 000 — are not modulated.

Differences in the amount of direct payments in the Republic of Lithuania, compared with the old Member States

Direct payments actually made to Lithuanian farmers from the European Union budget in 2012 are among the lowest, amounting to less than half those received in the old Member States despite the 10 % modulation of the latter.

Infringement of the Act of Accession by the concluding words of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, by the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, and by Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 adopted on the basis of that subparagraph

The Act of Accession did not lay down provisions concerning modulation of the direct payments introduced and/or reduction in Lithuania of complementary national direct payments.

The provision ‘taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’ in Article 10(1) in Chapter 2 of Regulation No 73/2009 is contrary to the Act of Accession because this provision accelerates the supposed equalisation of the level of direct payments in the old and new Member States.

The part of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 ‘… taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’, which enshrines the supposed equalisation in 2012 of the level of direct payments in the old and new Member States, is contrary to the Act of Accession because it lays down a specific year (2012) when the level of support received is supposedly equalised.

In Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, in breach of the Act of Accession, the term ‘amount’ was changed to the term ‘level’, which involves not the support actually received but a supposed percentage.

It is unlawful to compare direct payments in the old and new Member States by comparing support received by the old Member States (100 % minus modulation) with the support received in the new Member States in accordance with the percentage rate, laid down in the Act of Accession, for the introduction of support.

Infringement by the contested legal measures of the objectives of the common agricultural policy that are laid down

On the basis of the Act of Accession, agricultural support in the new Member States is calculated according to the reference yield and the base area. In 2012 the reference yield and the base area changed greatly in Lithuania, so that the modulation applied and the reduction of complementary national payments are in themselves contrary to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, in particular to the objective of increasing agricultural productivity.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/28

Action brought on 31 July 2013 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-402/13)

2013/C 313/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 25 and 27 June 2013 addressed to France Télécom, Orange and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by them, ordering them to undergo an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Those decisions were taken in the context of proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement concerning the sector providing internet connectivity services (Case AT.40090).

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of necessity and proportionality, in that the Commission ordered an inspection in relation to practices which were very similar to those covered by a decision delivered by the French competition authority only nine months earlier, even though the French competition authority found no anti-competitive conduct on the part of Orange. The applicant claims that, at the time of the inspection, the Commission did not seek additional information to that which it already had at its disposal, something which it ought to have done in accordance with the case-law in this area.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are arbitrary, in that the Commission does not have sufficiently serious and detailed grounds for taking a measure as intrusive as an inspection.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/28

Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Gossio v Council

(Case T-406/13)

2013/C 313/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Casablanca, Morocco) (represented by: S. Zokou, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul:

—	Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 and Council Implementing Decision 2012/144/CFSP of 8 March 2012 establishing restrictive measures because of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire in so far as they relate to and affect the applicant;

—

the decision of 17 May 2013 confirming and prolonging the above mentioned restrictive measures in so far as the consequence is that the applicant must continue to be named among the persons and entities listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP and Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 concerning restrictive measures established in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea: misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment, in that:

—	the allegations as to what the applicant has done have no objective basis and are supported by no tangible evidence;

—	it is impossible to establish an objective connection between the reasons relied on to justify the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant and the general situation in Côte d’Ivoire;

—	the initial legal bases for the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are incompatible with the most recent grounds relied on to justify those measures;

—	the Council’s decisions are a misuse of procedure or abuse of power.

Second plea: infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular his right to the presumption of innocence, his right to carry on business, his right of property, the principle of proportionality, the right to respect for private and family life and the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/29

Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission

(Case T-416/13)

2013/C 313/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valletta, Malta); and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris, and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013, to close the complaint filed by the applicants against the Hellenic Republic and the Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics (OPAP) in case COMP/39.981; and

—	Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence, and a manifest error of fact in assessing the arguments set out in the complaint with reference to Article 102 TFEU, the concrete and autonomous abuse or abuses of dominance committed by OPAP and the relevant market definition.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to state reasons and a breach of Article 296 TFEU.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission and breach of the principle of autonomous nature and objectives of competition rules.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of law, failure to assess the compatibility of the relevant Greek legislation with Union law, prior to conducting the assessment of an infringement under Article 102 TFEU, and breach of the right to a good and diligent administration conferred by Article 41(1) of the Charter of Rights, and the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence with reference to Article 106 TFEU.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/30

Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)

(Case T-427/13)

2013/C 313/56

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gruppo Norton Srl (Carini, Italy) (represented by: García Lirola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victoriano Marín Nicolás (Alcantarailla, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	deliver a judgment in which, ruling on the substance of the case, it upholds the registration of the trade mark for all of the goods in respect of which it is sought.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gruppo Norton Srl

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Gruppo Norton S.r.l.’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9 — Community trade mark application No 10 169 753

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Victoriano Marín Nicolás

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark ‘NORTON HISPANO’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Inadmissibility of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/30

Action brought on 19 August 2013 — IOC-UK v Council

(Case T-428/13)

2013/C 313/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08.06.2013, L156/10), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08/06/2013 L156/3), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant submits seven grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing; insufficient statement of reasons; violation of the right of defence; manifest error of assessment; breach of the fundamental principle of proportionality; breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination; and breach of the fundamental right to property.

The Applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the Applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council has provided an insufficient statement of reasons. The Applicant's requests to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents, have not as yet been replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council has violated the right of defence of the Applicant, who has been denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings have been withheld from the Applicant. Moreover, the Council has not substantiated that indirect control of the Applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. In relation to the reasons given for its listing the Applicant considers these either insufficient or vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, taken overall, a comparison of the objectives of the listing decision and the practical impact of this decision for the Applicant demonstrates that the decision is disproportionate. Finally, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/31

Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council

(Case T-433/13)

2013/C 313/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Petropars Iran Co. (Kish Island, Iran); Petropars Oilfields Services Co. (Kish Island); Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. (Tehran, Iran); and Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co. (Tehran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, P. Reddy, Solicitor, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and Z. Burbeza, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul entries 1-4 of Annex II.I.B. to Decision 2013/270 (1) and entries 1-4 of Annex II.I.B. to Regulation 522/2013 (2); and/or

—	Declare Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (3) and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 (4) inapplicable to the applicants; and

—	Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for the applicants’ designation by way of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 as the reason given for the designation of each of the applicants (‘Subsidiary of [a] designated entity’) is not one of the criteria for listing in Council Regulation 267/2012 or Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

Second plea in law, alleging that in so far as the Council purported to act under Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413, the designation of the applicants is unlawful: because (1) the substantive criteria for designation thereunder are not met in the case of any of the applicants and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met; and (2) the Council designated the applicants on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria were met and thereby committed a (further) manifest error of assessment.

Third plea in law, alleging that In so far as Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 and/or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 permits the designation of the applicants solely on the basis that they are subsidiaries of designated entities (which entities are in turn subsidiaries of designated entities not accused of any wrongdoing), the same are unlawful as being contrary to the principle of proportionality and should be declared inapplicable to the applicants.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicants is in any event in violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter of Fundamental Rights or as otherwise part of Union law, including their right to trade and carry out their businesses and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality. The designation further represents a breach of the precautionary principle and of the principles of environmental protection and the protection of human health and safety, as it is likely to cause significant damage to the health and safety or ordinary Iranian workers and the environment.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has, in passing Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 in so far as they apply to the applicants, breached the procedural requirements (i) to give the (Third and Fourth) applicants individual notification of their designation; (ii) to give (all the applicants) adequate and sufficient reasons; and (iii) to respect the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

(1) Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3)

(3) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

(4) 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)

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/31

Action brought on 26 August 2013 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)

(Case T-453/13)

2013/C 313/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) and reject the opposition against the applicant’s Community trade mark application (No 9545096).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Klaes’ for goods in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 096

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark in blue ‘Klaes’ for services in Class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/32

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

(Case T-458/13)

2013/C 313/60

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision;

—	Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 13, 23, 25 and 38 — application for Community trade mark No 10 895 258.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/32

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

(Case T-459/13)

2013/C 313/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision;

—	Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 2, 6, 10 and 22 — application for Community trade mark No 10 892 446.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/32

Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission

(Case T-467/13)

2013/C 313/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Arrow Group ApS (Roskilde, Denmark); and Arrow Generics Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kon, C. Firth, and C. Humpe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck insofar as they pertain to Arrow; or

—	In the alternative annul Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck insofar as it imposes a fine on Arrow in respect of the UK and Danish Agreements; or

—	In the further alternative annul Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck insofar as it imposes a fine on Arrow in respect of the Danish Agreement and reduce the fine accordingly; or

—	In the final alternative reduce the fine imposed pursuant to Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck; and

—	Order the Commission to pay Arrow’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements in the process leading to the adoption of the Decision, by failing (i) to open proceedings and pursue its investigation with a reasonable timeframe, (ii) to provide timely and proper access to file and (iii) to issue a supplementary statement of objections.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that Arrow and Lundbeck were potential competitors when entering into each of the Agreements.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that each of the Agreements had the object of restricting competition contrary to Article 101 TFEU.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the principles of proportionality, nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, and legal certainty in imposing a fine on Arrow.

Fifth plea in law, alleging in the alternative that the Commission has erred in characterising the UK Agreement and the Danish Agreement as a single continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and has infringed Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) by imposing a fine on Arrow in respect of the Danish Agreement following the expiry of the limitation period for the imposition of fines.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging in the further alternative, that the Commission has committed errors in calculating the amount of the fine by imposing a fine which is disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged infringements of Article 101 TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/33

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)

(Case T-482/13)

2013/C 313/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cryo-Save AG (Pfäffikon, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and alter it to the effect that the appeal lodged by the applicant at OHIM is well-founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected;

—	In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and refer the case back to the competent Examiner at OHIM;

—	Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CryoSafe’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 619 586

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cryo-Save AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CryoSave’ for goods in Classes 10, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/34

Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Navarra de Servicios y Technologías v Commission

(Case T-487/13)

2013/C 313/64

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Navarra de Servicios y Technologías SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: A. Andérez González, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision in so far as it affects the applicant, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

The applicant alleges, in that respect, that there was no State aid, since in the present case there is no State intervention through the transfer of State resources, no advantage in favour of undertakings carrying out an economic activity and no distortion of competition or threat to trade between the Member States.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(2) TFEU and of the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997.

In this respect, the applicant alleges that

—	the services of general economic interest, in respect of whose configuration, organisation and funding the Member States have a wide margin of discretion, are of a lawful nature.

—	it did not obtain a more favourable competitive position;

—

the Altmark criteria were observed in the present case, in that there are clearly defined, and expressly transferred, public service obligations and a detailed and an objective economic quantification was carried out that does not exceed the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligation.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that there is an objective of common interest in the present case, in respect of which the disputed measure is suitable and proportionate and does not provoke unnecessary distortions on the market.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power between the objective of the contested decision and the ultimate purpose pursued through it, as well as a manifest disproportion between the theoretical aim pursued and the consequences of its application, which are contrary to the general interest and favour the commercial and economic interests of a specific operator or operators.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/35

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Gheysens v Council

(Case F-83/08) (1)

(Civil service - Auxiliary member of the contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Function group - Types of duties and corresponding function groups - Duration of employment)

2013/C 313/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Malines, Belgium) (represented initially by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, and subsequently by M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant’s engagement in so far as it limits the duration of the contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1 and a declaration that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union to recruit Mr Gheysens in so far as it classifies him in function group III;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Gheysens;

4.	Orders Mr Gheysens to bear one quarter of his own costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 06.12.2008, p. 59.

26.10.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/35

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-31/13)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)

2013/C 313/66

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Action to annul the dismissal of the applicant’s application requesting payment of compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered following his reassignment from the Commission delegation in Luanda to the Commission headquarters in Brussels.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.313.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 313

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 56 26 October 2013

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2013/C 313/01	Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 304, 19.10.2013	1

	General Court
2013/C 313/02	Election of the President of the General Court	2

2013/C 313/03	Election of the Vice-President of the General Court	2

2013/C 313/04	Elections of Presidents of Chambers	2

2013/C 313/05	Assignment of Judges to Chambers	2

2013/C 313/06	Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers	4

2013/C 313/07	Plenary session	4

2013/C 313/08	Composition of the Grand Chamber	5

2013/C 313/09	Appeal Chamber	5

2013/C 313/10	Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures	5

	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2013/C 313/11	Composition of the Chambers and attachment of the Judges to Chambers	6

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2013/C 313/12	Case C-407/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2013 — Rotondo and Others v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana	7

2013/C 313/13	Case C-418/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2013 — Napolitano and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca	7

2013/C 313/14	Case C-420/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Netto Marken Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt	8

2013/C 313/15	Case C-421/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Apple, Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt	8

2013/C 313/16	Case C-428/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato/Italy lodged on 26 July 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA	9

2013/C 313/17	Case C-434/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2013 in Case T-146/09: Parker ITR Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp v Commission	9

2013/C 313/18	Case C-441/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2013 — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH	10

2013/C 313/19	Case C-448/13 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2013 by Delphi Technologies, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-515/11: Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)	10

2013/C 313/20	Case C-449/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 12 August 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus and Others	11

2013/C 313/21	Case C-450/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Donaldson Filtration GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-396/11 ultra air GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)	12

2013/C 313/22	Case C-454/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek	13

2013/C 313/23	Case C-466/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Repsol, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-89/12 Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses ®	13

2013/C 313/24	Case C-496/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)	13

	General Court
2013/C 313/25	Case T-73/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission (Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphne II programme — Determination of the amount of the final grant — Debit note — Measure open to challenge — Obligation to state reasons — Fair trial — Errors of assessment)	15

2013/C 313/26	Case T-142/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)	15

2013/C 313/27	Case T-164/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of doctors — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)	15

2013/C 313/28	Case T-380/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Netherlands v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request seeking to obtain access to certain confidential passages of the final decision of the Commission relating to a cartel — Refusal of access — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination — Exception concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Overriding public interest — Sincere cooperation)	16

2013/C 313/29	Case T-525/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Poste Italiane v Commission (State aid — Remuneration of funds from postal accounts placed with the Italian Treasury — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Advantage)	16

2013/C 313/30	Case T-536/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Huvis v Council (Dumping — Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in South Korea — Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))	17

2013/C 313/31	Case T-537/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of polyester staple fibres originating in China — Maintenance of anti-dumping duties following a partial interim review — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 9(5) and Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))	17

2013/C 313/32	Case T-548/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Rights of the defence — Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties — Presumption of innocence — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption where the parent company holds nearly 100 % of the shares)	18

2013/C 313/33	Case T-566/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Proof of the existence of the cartel — Concept of a single and continuous infringement — Duration of the infringement — Interruption of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Equal treatment — Presumption of innocence — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares — Proportionality — Rounding method — Unlimited jurisdiction)	18

2013/C 313/34	Case T-126/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)	19

2013/C 313/35	Case T-218/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of assistants — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)	19

2013/C 313/36	Case T-347/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Germany v Commission (State aid — Transfer free of charge of certain areas of natural national heritage — Measures for the financial support of large-scale environmental protection projects — Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Concept of undertaking — Obligation to state reasons)	20

2013/C 313/37	Case T-320/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt v OHIM — Castel Frères (CASTEL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CASTEL — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility — Absolute ground for refusal not put forward before the Board of Appeal — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	20

2013/C 313/38	Case T-551/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission (State aid — Subsidy for the takeover of a thermoelectric power plant and conversion thereof into a biofuel power plant — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application ratione temporis of the guidelines on national regional aid — Legitimate expectations — Incentive effect)	21

2013/C 313/39	Case T-111/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Studies received by the Commission concerning the transposition of directives on the environment — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Specific and individual assessment — Compatibility with the Aarhus Convention — Overriding public interest — Consequences of exceeding the period for the adoption of an express decision — Extent of the obligation actively to disseminate environmental information)	21

2013/C 313/40	Case T-214/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market — Refusal of access — Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Obligation to state reasons)	21

2013/C 313/41	Case T-264/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — 2007 appraisal and promotion period — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — Reasonable period — Claim for setting aside — Claim for damages)	22

2013/C 313/42	Case T-331/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Besselink v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Partial access — Obligation to state reasons — Application for measures of organisation of procedure or inquiry — Inadmissible)	22

2013/C 313/43	Case T-380/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)	23

2013/C 313/44	Case T-383/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights)	23

2013/C 313/45	Case T-418/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Sickness insurance — Refusal to reimburse medical expenses — Request to designate an independent doctor — Reasonable period — Rejection of a request to institute arbitration proceedings — Claim for setting aside — Claim for reimbursement of medical expenses — Lis pendens)	23

2013/C 313/46	Case T-457/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)	24

2013/C 313/47	Case T-492/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Rauscher Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)	24

2013/C 313/48	Case T-563/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure by default — Application to intervene — No need to adjudicate)	24

2013/C 313/49	Case T-592/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Presumption of innocence — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons)	25

2013/C 313/50	Case T-618/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — 2008 appraisal and promotion period — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Scope of review — Assessment report — Plea of illegality — Reasonable period — Claim for setting aside — Claim for damages — Lis pendens)	25

2013/C 313/51	Case T-383/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others	26

2013/C 313/52	Case T-386/13: Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB and Others v Council and Commission	27

2013/C 313/53	Case T-402/13: Action brought on 31 July 2013 — Orange v Commission	28

2013/C 313/54	Case T-406/13: Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Gossio v Council	28

2013/C 313/55	Case T-416/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission	29

2013/C 313/56	Case T-427/13: Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)	30

2013/C 313/57	Case T-428/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — IOC-UK v Council	30

2013/C 313/58	Case T-433/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council	31

2013/C 313/59	Case T-453/13: Action brought on 26 August 2013 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)	31

2013/C 313/60	Case T-458/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)	32

2013/C 313/61	Case T-459/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)	32

2013/C 313/62	Case T-467/13: Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission	32

2013/C 313/63	Case T-482/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)	33

2013/C 313/64	Case T-487/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Navarra de Servicios y Technologías v Commission	34

	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2013/C 313/65	Case F-83/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Gheysens v Council (Civil service — Auxiliary member of the contract staff — Conditions of engagement — Function group — Types of duties and corresponding function groups — Duration of employment)	35

2013/C 313/66	Case F-31/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time)	35