20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/1

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/2

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/2

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/3

1.

Does Article 5 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) preclude a restriction of the freedom to provide services in a case where a tax consultancy company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State prepares in the Member State of its establishment, where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return for a recipient of services in another Member State and sends it to the tax authority, and national provisions in that other Member State require that a tax consultancy company be recognised as authorised to provide professional assistance in tax matters and that the tax advisers managing the company must act autonomously?

2.

Can a tax consultancy company, in the circumstances referred to in question 1, rely successfully on Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2), irrespective of which of the two Member States is the one in which it provides the service?

3.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a restriction, by measures applicable in the Member State of the recipient of services, of the freedom to provide services in the circumstances referred to in question 1, if the tax consultancy company is not established in the Member State of the recipient of the services?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/3

1.

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 (1) of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not (OJ 2013 L 82 of 22.3.2013, pp. 10-17; ‘Regulation No 260/2013’) invalid because the anti-dumping duty introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, and which was to be extended, was no longer in force at the time when Regulation No 260/2013 was adopted?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

2.

Is Regulation No 260/2013 invalid because there is no evidence of circumvention, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Regulation No [1225/2009], of the measure imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (2)?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/4

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/4

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/5

1.

Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Article 52(3) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax, ‘EStG’), in so far as the cause of the reinstatement of an amount corresponding to losses of a foreign permanent establishment previously taken into account by way of a tax reduction is the sale of that permanent establishment to another company limited by shares within the same group as the seller, and not the making of profits?

2.

Is Article 49 TFEU (Article 43 EC) to be understood as precluding a provision such as Article 23(1)(a) of the DBA Deutschland/Österreich 2000 (2000 Double taxation convention between Germany and Austria) — according to which income from Austria is to be exempt from the basis of assessment for German taxation if that income can be taxed in Austria — if losses accrued in an Austrian permanent establishment of a German company limited by shares can no longer be taken into account in Austria because the permanent establishment is sold to an Austrian company limited by shares belonging to the same group as the German company?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/5

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/7

1)

Having regard to the principle of sincere cooperation, the principle of effectiveness with a view to achieving the objectives of directives and the principle that penalties must be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable, can Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting criminal proceedings to be brought on the basis of national legislation that existed before harmonisation (Article 19(1)(f) and (i) of the [Aliens and Immigration Law (‘Chapter 105’)]) against an illegally staying third-country national upon whom unsuccessful coercive removal measures have been imposed and who has remained in detention for a period greater than 18 months, because he does not have a passport in his possession and does not cooperate with the authorities for the purpose of issue of such a passport through his embassy, pleading fear that he will be persecuted by the Iranian authorities?

2)

If the above question is answered in the affirmative, can the criminal proceedings in question be brought immediately after the maximum period of 18 months’ detention for the purposes of deportation has been completed, with the result that the illegally staying third-country national is not released, but can continue to be detained because the criminal proceedings against him are pending if the court considers that necessary because of the risk of absconding?

3)

What is the meaning of a ‘lack of cooperation’ by the third-country national in Article 15(6)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC and, in particular, is it permissible for its meaning to coincide with the provisions of national law (Article 19(1)(f) and (i) of the [Aliens and Immigration Law (‘Chapter 105’)]) which criminalise any refusal to ‘produce to the Director any document that the Director might request’ and any ‘defi[ance] or hind[rance], whether actively or passively, [of] any Director in the performance of his duties’ on account of failure to produce the passport, whilst, at the same time, no evidence is adduced relating to the actions which the authorities have taken vis-à-vis the country of origin for the successful removal of the third-country national?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/7

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/9

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/10

1)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

2)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

3)

Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

4)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

5)

Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

6)

Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/11

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

2.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

3.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004?

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/12

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/13

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/13

1)

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 12 July 2011 refusing MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc. and MasterCard Europe access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to:

2)

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/14

1)

Dismisses the action.

2)

Orders Micrus Endovascular LLC to pay the costs.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/15

1)

Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006;

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/16

1)

Dismisses the action.

2)

Orders Biscuits Poult SAS to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Banketbakkerij Merba BV.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/16

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders DTM Ricambi Srl to pay the costs.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/17

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 14 May 2014 (C(2014)3271 final) on the suspension of interim payments within the framework of the operational programme of support for Estonia from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the 2007-2013 programme period;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied Articles 25(2) and 89 of Regulation No 1198/2006 (1) wrongly.

The applicant claims that the interpretation the Commission gave to Article 25, according to which support for investments is justified only if the relevant technical indicators of a vessel are improved by means of them, so that the improvement goes beyond restoring the original condition of the vessel, does not correspond to the wording, meaning or objectives of that article. The wording of Article 25(2) leaves a broad discretion as to what sort of investments may be supported within the framework of the EFF. Since the applicant complied with the provisions of Article 25(2), the application of Article 89 and the suspension of interim payments for supporting the first priority axis of the operational programme are also inappropriate.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006.

The applicant criticises the Commission for not taking a decision on suspension of payments within six months from the notification of interruption of interim payments. According to the applicant, the Commission thereby infringed Article 88 of Regulation No 1198/2006 and contradicted its own guidelines concerning the interruption, suspension and financial correction of interim payments.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration by adopting the contested decision, since (1) it did not assess carefully or take into account all the information provided by the applicant, (2) it did not check whether all the assumptions used in making its decision were correct, (3) it automatically treated all investments which were carried out for bringing amortised vessels into a better condition as routine maintenance, and (4) it wrongly assessed that those investments did not contribute to attaining the objectives laid down in Article 25(2).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

The applicant claims that, regardless of the position which was clearly and precisely expressed in the Commission’s letter and thus gave rise to a legitimate expectation, according to which expenditure on renovating/repairing an engine may be covered by Article 25(2) of Regulation No 1198/2006 if the vessel’s fishing ability is not increased thereby, the Commission later decided that such expenditures does not contribute to improving the technical indicators of any vessel, but rather to restoring or preserving the original condition of fishing vessels, and are therefore ineligible for aid. The applicant claims that it was not aware of the latter approach; it could not be deduced from Article 25 of Regulation No 1198/2006 or from the Commission’s letter in reply to the corresponding question asked by the applicant.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty.

The applicant considers that the circumstance that the Commission makes a final decision on suspension of an application for an interim payment after more than three years have passed from the interruption of the first application for an interim payment, thereby failing to comply with the six-month period laid down in Article 88(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006, clearly conflicts with the principle of legal certainty. Such conduct by the Commission could not in any way have been foreseen by the recipients of support from the EFF.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/18

—

annul Decision R 1587/2013-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 on the basis of Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

—

order OHIM and, in the case of its intervention in the proceedings before the Court, the party concerned to pay the costs.

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the content of the Bulgarian law was incorrectly examined of the Board’s own motion);

—

Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (there was no comprehensive and correct evaluation of the evidence submitted);

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the evidence submitted and legal arguments were not examined in relation to the conditions laid down in that provision).

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/19

—

annul the decision contained in the letter from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Budget, No. BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918, of 2 June 2014 in which, first, the applicant is declared to be financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the EU budget, because sugar was imported outside the system of tariff import quotas and that the resources for that importation were not determined and in which, second, the applicant is ordered to make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources amounting, in the event that the import licence was used to its fullest extent, to EUR 1 2 57  000;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

1.

First plea: manifest error of assessment

2.

Second plea: breach of the rules concerning the Commission’s decision-making procedures

3.

Third plea: inadequate statement of reasons and incorrect legal basis

4.

Fourth plea: infringement of the rights of defence and the right to be heard

5.

Fifth plea: the Commission’s failure of inspection

6.

Sixth plea: infringement of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the avoidance of unjust enrichment

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/20

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, as far as it applies to Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; and

—

Order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law in considering that the applicant’s production costs and financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, third indent.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and failed to adduce consistent evidence in deducting from the applicant’s export price a sales agent commission equivalent to the mark-up charged to the applicant by a related company in Hong Kong, without adducing adequate evidence that this related company was indeed operating as a commission-based agent, in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not calculate the applicant’s export price on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold to the EU, nor is it based on the price at which the exported product is first resold to an independent buyer in the EU, in breach of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.

4.

The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the essential facts and evidences making it possible to understand how it calculated the applicant’s dumping and injury margins, in breach of Article 20 of the basic Regulation and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/21

—

declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

—

consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00  000.

—

order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants;

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/22

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

—

consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/22

—

alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64  354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

—

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

—

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

20.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/23