Official Journal C 71/2013

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-529/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid incompatible with the common market - Obligation of recovery - Failure to comply with a Commission Decision - Objection of inadmissibility - Res judicata by means of a previous judgment of the Court)

2013/C 71/02

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 288 TFEU and of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15) — Aid granted to Industrias Domésticas, S.A. (Indosa)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors, as regards the undertaking Industrias Domésticas SA, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

2.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.

(Case C-73/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Cancellation of 65 % of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Private creditor test - Limits of judicial review - Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision - Manifest error of assessment - Distortion of evidence)

2013/C 71/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and by O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati and B. Martenczuk, Agents), St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Kosice a.s v European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission Decision C(2006) 2087 final, of 7 June 2006, concerning aid granted by Slovakia for Frucona Košice in the form of a cancellation of a tax debt by the competent tax office in a collective bankruptcy procedure (State Aid No C 25/2005, ex NN/2005), in so far as that decision declares that measure incompatible with the common market and orders Slovakia to recover the aid in its entirety

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Košice v Commission;

2.	Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the pleas raised before it on which it did not rule;

3.	Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Stanleybet International LTD (C-186/11), William Hill Organization Ltd (C-186/11), William Hill Plc (C-186/11), Sportingbet plc (C-209/11) v Ypourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ypourgos Politismou

(Joined Cases C-186/11 and C-209/11) (1)

(Articles 43 and 49 EC - National legislation granting an exclusive right for the running, management, organisation and operation of games of chance to a single undertaking, in the form of a public limited company listed on the stock exchange - Advertising of the games and expansion in other Member States of the European Union - State controls)

2013/C 71/04

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanleybet International Ltd (C-186/11), William Hill Organization Ltd (C-186/11), William Hill Plc (C-186/11), Sportingbet plc (C-209/11)

Defendants: Ypourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ypourgos Politismou

Intervener: Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (Articles 43 and 49 EC) — National legislation under which, for the purpose of restricting games of chance, an exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance is granted to a single undertaking, in the form of a public limited company listed on the stock exchange — Advertising of the games by that company and expansion in other countries of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance to a single entity, where, firstly, that legislation does not genuinely meet the concern to reduce opportunities for gambling and to limit activities in that domain in a consistent and systematic manner and, secondly, where strict control by the public authorities of the expansion of the sector of games of chance, solely in so far as is necessary to combat criminality linked to those games, is not ensured. It is for the national court to ascertain whether this is the case.

In the event that the national legislation governing the organisation of games of chance is incompatible with the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, the national authorities may not refrain from considering applications, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, for permission to operate in the sector of games of chance, during a transitional period.

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the competent national authorities may examine applications for permission to organise games of chance submitted to them according to the level of consumer protection and the preservation of order in society that they intend to uphold solely on the basis of objective, non-discriminatory criteria.

(1) OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat — Austria) — Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk

(Case C-283/11) (1)

(Directive 2010/13/EU - Provision of audiovisual media services - Article 15(6) - Validity - Events of high interest to the public that are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights - Right of access of broadcasters to such events for the purpose of making short news reports - Limitation of possible compensation for the holder of the exclusive right to additional costs incurred in providing such access - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 17 - Proportionality)

2013/C 71/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundeskommunikationssenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Österreich GmbH

Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundeskommunikationssenat — Compatibility of Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1) with the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property as guaranteed under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Right of all broadcasters to benefit, for the production of short news programmes, from access to events of high interest to the public which are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights — Limitation of possible compensation to additional costs incurred in providing such access — Proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive).

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013 — European Commission v Tomkins plc

(Case C-286/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for copper and copper alloy fittings - Liability of the parent company stemming solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary - Principle of ‘ne ultra petita’ - Effect on the legal situation of the parent company of an annulment determined by a judgment concerning a subsidiary)

2013/C 71/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Tomkins plc (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, instructed by S. Jordan, Solicitor)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-382/06 Tomkins v Commission annulling in part Commission Decision 2007/691/EC of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) (notified under C(2006) 4180) concerning a cartel relating to fixing prices, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating customers and exchanging commercial information, in the European market for copper fittings, particularly copper alloy fittings (OJ 2007 L 283, p.63), and reducing the fine imposed on Tomkins plc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/4

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F), formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-646/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Tax-reduction measures - Seafarers working on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register - Article 88(3) EC - Preliminary examination stage - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Conditions for initiating the formal investigation procedure - Existence of doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid with the common market - Period for the examination)

2013/C 71/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F), formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, S. Aparicio Hill, abogada, and V. Edwards, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and C. Thorning, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV 3F v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 finding the tax-reduction measures applicable to seafarers on board Danish vessels to be State aid compatible with the common market (Case C-319/07 P referred back after successful appeal)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F) to pay the costs;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/5

Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C-534/12 P)

2013/C 71/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV.

(a)

Declare to be admissible the application lodged by the appellant on 27 December 2011 for revision of the order of the First Chamber of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in the proceedings already decided by the General Court in Case T-241/03, the application of 27 December 2011 having initiated the proceedings at first instance and, as a consequence, order that the case be proceeded with as a matter of law, and

(b)	order the respondent to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in connection with the present proceedings; or

—	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court so that it may give a fresh ruling on the admissibility of the application of 27 December 2011 and, subsequently, if appropriate, proceed with the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Errores in procedendo, affecting the appellant’s interests, inherent in the serious errores in iudicando, including, inter alia: (a) total failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons in the order under appeal; (b) breach of essential procedural requirements; (c) breach of the principle of mandatory jurisdiction on the part of the proper court specified by law to hear a case; (d) breach of the first subparagraph of Article 64(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, of Article 127(1) and (2) of those rules and, lastly, of the procedural right by which the appellant is vested with authority to propose to the Court, at any time, a measure of organisation of procedure relating to the case.

2.	Breach of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

3.	Breach of a principle of law contained in a judgment of the EU judicature, namely the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 October 1977 in Case C-56/75 REV Elz v EC.

4.	Total failure to investigate adequately and to state reasons in the order under appeal, on the grounds, inter alia, of distortion and misapplication of the facts and the appellant’s assertions.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 December 2012 — KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-557/12)

2013/C 71/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Respondent: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Question referred

Is Article 101 TFEU (Article 81 EC, Article 85 of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that any person may claim from members of a cartel damages also for the loss which he has been caused by a person not party to the cartel who, benefiting from the protection of the increased market prices, raises his own prices for his products more than he would have done without the cartel (umbrella pricing), so that the principle of effectiveness laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union requires grant of a claim under national law?

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/6

Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 11 December 2012 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack

(Case C-579/12 RX)

2013/C 71/10

Language of the case: German

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Appellant: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack

Questions to be reviewed

The review shall concern the questions whether – having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the entitlement to paid annual leave as a principle of European Union social law, which is also expressly affirmed in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is covered in particular by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) – the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 November 2012 in Case T 268/11 P Commission v Strack affects the unity or consistency of European Union law inasmuch as the General Court, as an appeal court:

—	interpreted Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to the effect that it does not include the requirements relating to the organisation of working time contained in Directive 2003/88, in particular, paid annual leave, and

—

consequently, interpreted Article 4 of Annex V to those Regulations as implying that the right to carry over annual leave exceeding the limit laid down in that provision may be granted only where the official has been unable to take leave for reasons connected with his activity as an official and the duties he has thus been required to perform.

The persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the parties to the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union are invited to lodge their written observations on those questions at the Court of Justice of the European Union within one month of the service of the present decision.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/6

Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission

(Case C-586/12 P)

2013/C 71/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	partially set aside the judgment under appeal, in so far as the General Court held therein that the Commission demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that KWS acted as leader in the cartel established by the Commission;

—	partially annul Article 1(j) of the contested decision, (1) in so far as the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 27.36 million on KWS;

—	set a new fine for KWS in the amount of ;

—	order the Commission to pay a part of KWS’s procedural costs at first instance and in this appeal, to be determined more precisely by the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.

First plea

In its first plea, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and fundamental requirements relating to the consistency of judicial decisions in that, in the judgment under appeal, it used the same evidence, without stating any reasons, let alone any convincing reasons, in a contradictory manner against the different applicants, KWS and Shell Nederland Verkoop Maatschappij B.V. (‘SNV’, whose action was the subject of the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 in Case T-343/06), whereas, according to the contested decision, KWS and SNV together had the same role in the context of the cartel arrangements.

—	The General Court’s assessment of the alleged instigating and leadership roles of KWS and of SNV should be seen in conjunction with one another: the Commission found in the decision that KWS and SNV were jointly the driving force behind the cartel.

—	The probative value of a number of items of evidence relied upon by the Commission against KWS and SNV was assessed by the Court in a contradictory manner which is legally unacceptable.

—	On the basis of the foregoing, the finding that KWS was alone in having a leadership role in the cartel established between bitumen suppliers and road builders is untenable.

Second plea

By its second plea, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the prohibition on taking arbitrary measures, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality by considering in the judgment under appeal that the 50 % increase in the fine imposed on KWS on the basis of the existence of an instigating and leadership role could be maintained, even though the General Court had established that there were insufficient grounds for finding that KWS had an instigating role.

—	If the finding that KWS alone can be attributed a leadership role cannot be upheld, that also applies in respect of the increase in the fine.

—

By maintaining the increase in the fine set by the Commission, even though the Commission did not put forward sufficient evidence in respect of one of the two circumstances justifying an increase in the fine, the General Court ‘rewards’ the Commission for its careless assessment in the contested decision.

—	The principle of equal treatment and of proportionality preclude the General Court from maintaining the 50 % increase in KWS’s fine (in full moreover), whereas it annulled that increase in full in the parallel proceedings in Case T-343/06 as regards SNV and Others.

—	On the basis of the foregoing, the increase in fine as determined for KWS cannot be maintained.

(1) Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)).

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 14 December 2012 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v GMAC UK PLC

(Case C-589/12)

2013/C 71/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Defendant: GMAC UK PLC

Questions referred

To what extent is a taxable person, in relation to two transactions concerning the same goods, entitled both (i) to invoke the direct effect of one provision of EC Council Directive 77/388 (1) (‘the Sixth VAT Directive’) in respect of one transaction and (ii) to rely on the provisions of national law in relation to the other transaction, when to do so would produce an overall fiscal result in relation to the two transactions which neither national law nor the Sixth VAT Directive applied separately to those two transactions produces or is intended to produce?

If the answer to Question 1 is that there are circumstances in which the taxable person would not be entitled to do so (or would not be entitled to do so to a particular extent), what are the circumstances in which this would be so and in particular what is the relationship between the two transactions which would give rise to such circumstances?

3.	Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 differ according to whether or not the national treatment of one transaction is in conformity with the Sixth VAT Directive?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, p. 1

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/8

Action brought on 20 December 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-596/12)

2013/C 71/13

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

—

Declare that, by excluding the category of managers from the scope of the redundancy process laid down in Article 4 of Law No 223/1991, in conjunction with Article 24 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; (1)

—	order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by excluding the category of managers from the scope of the redundancy process (procedura di mobilità) laid down in Article 4 of Law No 223/1991, in conjunction with Article 24 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 98/59/EC.

That directive regulates the procedure for informing and consulting with the workers’ representatives which must be followed by an employer where he is contemplating collective redundancies, as well as the procedure for collective redundancies itself.

Pursuant to Article 1(1) and (2) of the directive, such procedures apply to dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned, where the number of redundancies is above a certain threshold set by reference to the number of workers in the undertaking. In calculating the number of workers employed by the undertaking and also the number of redundancies effected, all workers are included, regardless of their qualifications or duties, the only exceptions being those with contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time, public employees and the crews of seagoing vessels.

In implementing Directive 98/59/EC, the Italian legislature excluded from the scope of the information and consultation procedures established by it in the case of collective redundancies the category of managers, which, according to the Italian Civil Code, is included within the concept of a worker. Such an exclusion is not only contrary to the general scope of the directive, but is also wholly unjustified. The category of managers in Italian law is, indeed, very broad and even includes workers not entrusted with particular management powers in the context of the undertaking and defined as managers only in that they possesses a high level of professional qualifications.

(1) OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/8

Appeal brought on 20 December 2012 by Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-150/09: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-601/12 P)

2013/C 71/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should adopt a judgment that:

—

sets aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 October 2012 in Case T-I50/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. v Council by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China;

—	annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China, in so far as it concerns the Appellant; and

—	orders the Council of the European Union to pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-150/09.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court's findings with respect to Appellant's first plea before the General Court are vitiated by several errors of law as well as a distortion of the evidence. The Appellant therefore submits that the Contested Judgment should be set aside. In addition, the Appellant submits that the facts underlying the first plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on that plea. The Appellant only challenges the General Court's findings with respect to the (original) first plea and this on the basis of three grounds of appeal.

First, by introducing an ‘only plausible hypothesis’ criterion as a result of which the three-month time-limit in the second paragraph of Article 2 (7) (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (hereafter the ‘basic regulation’) allegedly does not apply, the Contested Judgment renders the three-month time limit meaningless. As a result, the Contested Judgment interpreted the second paragraph of Article 2 (7) (c) of the basic Regulation in a legally impermissible way since an interpreter is not free to adopt a reading that would result in rendering whole provisions or paragraphs to redundant or useless.

Second, in examining the legal consequences of a failure to comply with a procedural time-limit, the Contested Judgment applied the incorrect test, thereby imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the Appellant. If the Contested Judgment had applied the correct test, as set out by this Court in previous cases, it would have found that the failure to comply with the procedural time-limit justified the annulment of the Contested Regulation.

Finally, in arriving at its findings, the General Court distorted the evidence and the facts before it.

(1) OJ L 29, p. 1

(2) OJ L 56, p. 1

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/9

Appeal brought on 31 December 2012 by Jean-François Giordano against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-114/11 Giordano v Commission

(Case C-611/12 P)

2013/C 71/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Francois Giordano (represented by: D. Rigeade and A. Scheuer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Set aside the judgment of 7 November 2012 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-114/11.

And consequently:

—	Hold that the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 (1) of the Commission of the European Communities caused Mr Jean-François Giordano harm;

—	Order the Commission to pay Mr Jean-François Giordano damages in the sum of five hundred and forty-two thousand five hundred and ninety-four Euro (EUR 542 594), plus interest at the statutory rate and on a compound basis;

—	Order the Commission to pay the whole costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on six pleas in law in support of his appeal.

First, he considers that the General Court erred by holding that the harm he alleged was not genuine and certain, whereas the envisaged cessation of fishing would cause him harm because he would lose the opportunity to fish against his whole quota.

Second, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) and made a manifest error of assessment. Under Article 7 of that Regulation, only a serious threat to the conservation of marine resources would allow the Commission to adopt emergency measures. However, the Commission does not prove that there was fishing outside quotas during the 2008 bluefin tuna fishing season.

Third, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 restricted the appellant’s activity, thereby infringing Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which provides that everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

Fourth, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008, which prohibits bluefin tuna fishing from 16 June 2008, infringes the principle of legal certainty, whereas individuals should be entitled to work under clear and fixed rules.

Fifth, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. According to the appellant, persons have the right to be reasonably sure that the undertakings they have been given will be respected. Bluefin tuna fishing was initially authorised in France until 30 June 2008, meaning that the appellant had a legitimate expectation that he would be able to carry on fishing until that date.

Finally, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 infringed the appellant’s right of property which is however protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Since bluefin tuna coming from fishing is ‘property’ within the meaning of that Article, the envisaged cessation of fishing would cause the appellant serious economic loss and deprive him of a potential debt.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/10

Appeal brought on 21 December 2012 by Ballast Nedam NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission

(Case C-612/12 P)

2013/C 71/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Ballast Nedam NV (represented by: A.R. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	Set aside in full or in part the decision of the General Court as set out in the operative part of the judgment under appeal.

—

in the event that the appeal is allowed:

—	uphold in full or in part the form of order sought by Ballast Nedam at first instance;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Ballast Nedam puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.

By its first plea , Ballast Nedam submits that the General Court infringed Article 27(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the rights of the defence by failing to annul (in part) the Commission’s decision (2) in so far as that decision was directed at Ballast Nedam. The General Court failed to take account of the fact that, in the present case, the statement of objections of 18 October 2004 did not satisfy the relevant requirements of EU law.

In support of that submission, Ballast Nedam claims in the first place that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court on the one hand recognised that the statement of objections was unclear on an essential point but did not on the other hand conclude from this that the rights of the defence had not been guaranteed by the Commission.

In the second place, Ballast Nedam directs a complaint against the General Court’s assessment that, in the statement of objections, the Commission adduced sufficient material to make it possible to ascertain which facts and circumstances it used in support of its finding of an infringement and stated unequivocally which legal persons could except to be fined. In so far as that assessment concerns Ballast Nedam, it is based on a misinterpretation of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the requirements that the content of a statement of objections must satisfy. It is relevant in this respect that the subsidiary which committed the infringement imputed to Ballast Nedam is not identified in the statement of objections.

In the third place, Ballast Nedam challenges the General Court’s assessment that on the basis of the statement of objections it could not have been unaware that, as parent company of Ballast Nedam Grond en Wegen B.V. (‘BN Grond en Wegen’), it would be the addressee of the final Commission decision. In so doing, the General Court inter alia misconstrued the scope of the case-law of the Court of Justice which provides that a statement of objections must indicate in what capacity the allegations are being made against the undertaking.

In the fourth place, in assessing whether the Commission had respected the rights of the defence, the General Court wrongly took account of an alleged reaction by Ballast Nedam to the content of the statement of objections.

By its second plea , Ballast Nedam claims that the General Court infringed EU law by misapplying fundamental principles applicable in the context of imputing cartel infringements to parent companies. In the submission of Ballast Nedam, the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission was entitled to hold Ballast Nedam liable for an infringement of Article 81 EC, even though that infringement has not been established by the Commission.

In support of its second plea, Ballast Nedam refers in the first place to the fact that in the judgment of 24 March 2011 in Case T-382/06 Tomkins v Commission (2011) ECR II-1157) it was held that the liability of a parent company cannot exceed that of the subsidiary to which the infringement is imputed. This means that an infringement cannot be imputed to a parent company if and in so far as it has not been established by the Commission.

In that connection, Ballast Nedam submits that the Commission’s margin of assessment in deciding which entities within an undertaking are to be held liable for an infringement is not so extensive that a parent company can be held liable for an infringement which has not been established.

In the second place, Ballast Nedam takes issue with the fact that the General Court took into account that Ballast Nedam did not rebut the presumption that it exercised decisive influence over BN Grond en Wegen’s conduct on the market. That circumstance is closely linked to the infringement of the rights of the defence and is moreover irrelevant from a legal point of view.

(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 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2) Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)).

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupreau SAS

(Case C-2/13)

2013/C 71/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Respondent: Humeau Beaupreau SAS

Question referred

In the process of manufacturing footwear, must the operations of shaping the counter of an upper and of roughing of that upper and an outer sole, prior to their assembly, be classified as ‘assembly operations’ or ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’, within the meaning of point VII of the Explanatory Notes to General Rule 2(a) on the Interpretation of the Harmonised System?

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/12

Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by Gérard Buono. Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission

(Case C-12/13 P)

2013/C 71/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin (represented by: A. Arnaud and P-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Lous Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez

Form of order sought

—	Set aside the judgment of 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08;

—

Order the Union to pay them the following sums:

—	For Mr Gérard Buono (appellant No 1) and Mr Jean Luc Buono (appellant No 2), acting jointly in respect of their boats GERARD LUC III and IV, the sum of EUR 1 523 588,94 is sought;

—	For Mr Roger Del Ponte (appellant No 3), acting in respect of the boat ROGER CHRISTIAN IV, the sum of EUR 1 068 600 is sought;

—	For Mr Serge Antoine Di Rocco (appellant No 4), acting in respect of the boat ANNE ANTOINE II, the sum of EUR 1 094 800 is sought;

—	For Mr Jean Gérald Lubrano (appellant No 5), acting in respect of the boat VILLE D’ARZEW II, the sum of EUR 855 628,20 is sought;

—	For Mr Jean Lubrano (appellant No 6) and Mr Jean Lucien Lubrano (appellant No 7), acting jointly in respect of their boats GERALD JEAN III and IV, the sum of EUR 1 523 588,94;

—	For Mr Fabrice Marin (appellant No 8) and Mr Robert Marin (appellant No 9), acting jointly for their boat ERIC MARIN, the sum of EUR 865 784,59 is sought;

—	In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to enable it to rule again on the basis of the solutions given by the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on three pleas in law in support of their appeal.

First, the appellants complain that the General Court wrongly assessed the harm suffered by them in the context of the plea referring to non-contractual liability for an illegal act.

Second, the appellants maintain that the General Court, by not carrying out a correct assessment of the harm individually suffered by each appellant, infringed fundamental rights guaranteed under European Union law.

Third, and in the alternative, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to acknowledge, on the basis of the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, non-contractual liability for a lawful act.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/12

Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission

(Case C-13/13 P)

2013/C 71/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Syndicat des thoniers méditeranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Gérard Buono. Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin

Form of order sought

—	Uphold the claims and pleas in law of the appellants in their appeal;

—	Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 in so far as it rejects the appellants’ application;

—	Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 on the issue of costs;

—	Declare admissible and allow the application by the Syndicat des Thoniers de la Méditerranée (STM), including the application for damages;

—	Uphold the applications by the applicants before the General Court who have appealed to the Court of Justice;

—	Uphold the applications by the applicants before the General Court with regard to the principle of compensatory damages;

—	Uphold the applications of the applicants before the General Court with regard to the amount of compensation applied for in the initial application as subsequently corrected in accordance with the establishment of the elements of the loss of use calculation and the evidence;

—	Should the previous point be rejected, appoint an expert under the responsibility of the European Commission to calculate the compensation due on the basis of a calculation method to be adopted by the Court;

—	Order the Commission to pay all the costs and to reimburse all the charges relating to lawyers’ costs, legal proceedings, transport and travel incurred by the STM and the individual appellants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on four pleas in law in support of their appeal.

First, the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens considers that the General Court distorted the facts contained in the case-file in order to deny it any interest in bringing an action and, consequently, in order to hold that its action was inadmissible.

Second, the appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by interpreting the judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09 AJD Tuna in such a way as to make it possible to regard Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 (1) as an unlawful act. According to the appellants, that Regulation remains lawful, but is partially invalid.

Third, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to acknowledge the Commission's liability for a lawful act, on the basis that the harm relied on would not exceed the limits of the economic risk inherent in fishing.

Finally, the appellants complain that the General Court ruled in disregard of rules of law with which it was bound to comply by not ruling on the pleas in law or arguments brought before it by the parties to the dispute. In particular, the appellants complain that the General Court did not rule on the pleas in law or arguments concerning the different treatment of the Spanish seiners and the appellants under Regulation (EC) No 530/2008.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/13

Appeal brought on 22 January 2013 by Hungary against the judgment delivered on 18 November 2012 in Case T-194/10 Hungary v Commission

(Case C-31/13 P)

2013/C 71/20

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

—	Annulment of the judgment of the General Court under appeal.

—	The Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, as permitted by Article 61 of its Statute.

—	An order that the Commission bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the Hungarian Government alleges first that the General Court, in the judgment under appeal, misapplied the law of the European Union by declaring that the disputed entry in the E-Bacchus database had no legal effects so that the action brought in that regard was inadmissible. Moreover, the Hungarian Government also considers that the grounds stated for the judgment of the General Court are insufficient, in so far as in several instances it failed entirely to consider the allegations on the basis of which the Hungarian Government questioned the position of the Commission and confined itself to confirming that position without ruling on the merits of those allegations. Secondly, the Hungarian Government essentially repeats the argument on the merits put forward in the proceedings before the General Court in support of its claim that the Court of Justice, if the appeal is declared admissible, should give final judgment in the matter, as permitted by Article 61 of its Statute.

Through the creation of the E-Bacchus database, the legislature of the European Union established an industrial property register of protected designations of origin and geographical indications in the European Union which certifies the existence of such protection at Union level. As it is a single register, it cannot be accepted that only the entry of new names has legal effects: the same legal effects must attach to any entry in that database.

The General Court is mistaken in its assessment that, in the case of existing names, entry in the E-Bacchus database is merely an automatic (formal) transition from one regulatory system to another. According to the Hungarian Government, such entry is a substantive transformation which raises the protection of names, which previously happened at national level, to European Union level.

It is unacceptable, and breaches the principle of equality, if old and new names are assessed differently as regards the legal effects of entry in the E-Bacchus register. The legal effects derived from the entry must be the same whatever the name, even if a different procedure is followed for entry according to whether it is an old name or a new one.

The legal effects of entry also necessarily give rise to a certain monitoring obligation for the Commission at the point of developing and amending the content of the E-Bacchus database. In particular, the principle of sound administration means that the Commission should have ascertained what the legal situation was in Slovakia on the reference date (1 August 2009) and whether the original entry was in fact incorrect.

The General Court has also failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, in that when it assessed the merits of the case it failed to consider the Hungarian allegations questioning the position of the Commission but merely confirmed that position without ruling on the merits of those allegations.

In the view of the Hungarian Government, in amending the entry the Commission breached the relevant provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (2) having regard to the fact that, through the contested amendment of the original entry in the E-Bacchus register, it guaranteed the automatic protection under the new legislation of a name which could not be considered to be an ‘existing protected wine name’ pursuant to Article 118s of Regulation No 1234/2007. The Hungarian Government states that the name ‘Tokajská vinohradnícka oblast’, contained in Slovak Law 313/2009, adopted on 30 June 2009 and published in the Slovak official journal on 30 July 2009, is the one that must be considered to be an existing protected name.

Similarly, the Hungarian Government alleges that in its management of the E-Bacchus database, especially by making the entry contested in the present case, the Commission breached the fundamental principles of sound administration, cooperation in good faith and legal certainty, recognised by European Union Law.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

(2) Commission regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ 2009 L 193, p. 60).

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/15

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (JACKSON SHOES)

(Case T-474/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark JACKSON SHOES - Earlier national business name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB - Relative ground for refusal - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 71/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: A. Rodrigues, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jacson of Scandinavia AB (Vollsjö, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2009 (Case R 1253/2008-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Jacson of Scandinavia AB and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/15

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Cosepuri v EFSA

(Joined Cases T-339/10 and T-532/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Shuttle service in Italy and Europe - Tenderer’s bid rejected - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Non-contractual liability - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Bid of the successful tenderer - Access refused - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

2013/C 71/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: F. Fiorenza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment relating to tender procedure CFT/EFSA/FIN/2010/01 for the award of a shuttle service contract in Italy and Europe (OJ 2010/S 51-074689), together with a claim for damages (Case T-339/10), and an application for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 15 September 2010 refusing to grant the applicant access to the bid of the successful tenderer in the tender procedure in question (Case T-532/10)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions;

2.	Orders Cosepuri Soc. Coop. pA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/16

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-496/10) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 71/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Teheran, Iran) (represented initially by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Blakeley, S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, and M. Brindle QC)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Mellat:

—	point 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

—	point 2 of Table B to the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

—	point 4 of Table I.B in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413;

—	point 4 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007;

—	Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413;

—	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

—	point 4 of Table I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

2.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Bank Mellat;

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

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/16

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine)

(Case T-25/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community three-dimensional mark - Manual tile-cutting machine - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

2013/C 71/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Germans Boada, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2010 (Case R 771/2010-1), relating to an application for registration of the three-dimensional sign representing a manual tile-cutting machine as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Germans Boada, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/17

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER)

(Case T-189/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DISCO DESIGNER - Earlier figurative Community mark DISCO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 71/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peter Yordanov (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: T. Walter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and A. Pohlmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (Case R 803/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA and Mr Peter Yordanov.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Peter Yordanov to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/17

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon)

(Case T-283/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark nfon - Earlier Community trade mark fon and earlier national word mark FON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for alteration)

2013/C 71/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by F. Brandolini Kujman, and then by L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: nfon AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Schweyer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fon Wireless Ltd and nfon AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	alters the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009-4) to the effect that the action brought by nfon AG before the Board of Appeal is dismissed;

2.	orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd;

3.	orders nfon to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/18

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless)

(Case T-662/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Sunless - Earlier Community word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 71/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Müller (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Loncar, SL (Sabadell, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 2508/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Loncar, SL and Mr Thomas Müller

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Thomas Müller to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/18

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v Commission

(Case T-218/00) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 71/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia, Italy); Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia) (represented initially by: G. Boscolo, and subsequently by A. Boscolo, lawyers); and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Volpe and C. Montagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1.	The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

2.	The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

3.	Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. are to bear the Commission’s costs in addition to their own costs.

(1) OJ C 302, 21.10.2000.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/19

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Vigile San Marco v Commission

(Case T-262/00) (1)

2013/C 71/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: La Vigile San Marco SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (initially represented by: U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, assisted by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

2.	The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

3.	La Vigile San Marco SpA shall bear the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs;

4.	The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/19

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Navale v Commission

(Case T-263/00) (1)

2013/C 71/30

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: La Navale Soc. coop. rl (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

2.	The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

3.	La Navale Soc. coop. rl shall bear the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs;

4.	The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/20

Order of the General Court of 10 January 2013 — MyTravel v Commission

(Case T-403/05 RENV) (1)

(Access to institutions’ documents - Documents concerning a merger decision annulled by the General Court - Refusal to grant access - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 71/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: S. Cardell, B. Louveaux, P. Walter and P. Horan, Solicitors, and subsequently by: B. Louveaux, P. Walter and P. Horan, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, C. Stege and U. Persson, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: A. Falk and U. Persson, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C.H. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents); and the Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decisions of 5 September (D(2005) 8461) and 12 October 2005 (D(2005) 9763) rejecting an application brought by the applicant to obtain access to certain documents preparatory to Commission Decision 2000/276/EC of 22 September 1999 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice) (OJ 2000 L 93, p. 1), and to documents drafted by the Commission’s services as a consequence of the annulment of that decision by the judgment of the General Court in Case T 342/99 Airtours v Commission (2002) ECR II-2585

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.	MyTravel Group plc shall bear half of its own costs in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV and pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV.

3.	The European Commission shall bear half of its own costs in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV and pay half of the costs incurred by MyTravel Group plc in Cases T-403/05 and T-403/05 RENV.

4.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in Case C-506/08 P.

5.	The Kingdom of Sweden shall bear its own costs in Case T-403/05 RENV.

6.	The Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs in Cases C-508/06 P and T-403/05 RENV.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/20

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2013 — Divandari v Council

(Case T-497/10) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 71/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ali Divandari (Teheran, Iran) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Blakeley, S. Zaiwalla, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, and M. Brindle QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

2.	The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ali Divandari.

3.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/21

Order of the General Court of 11 January 2013 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council and Commission

(Joined Cases T-445/11 and T-88/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Action for damages - Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China - Provisional antidumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Definitive antidumping duty - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2013/C 71/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France), and Almet (Satolas-et Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the Eurpoean Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers (Case T-88/12) and European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, acting as Agents) (Case T-445/11)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, acting as Agents) (Case T-88/12)

Re:

In Case T-445/11, principally, annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 169, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application for damages for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the immediate entry into force of the contested regulation and, in Case T-88/12, principally, annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 336, p. 6) and, in the alternative, a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants in consequence of the definitive collection of the provisional duty ordered in that regulation.

Operative part of the order

1.	Cases T-445/11 and T-88/12 are joined for the purposes of the order

2.	The objections as to admissibility raised in Cases T-445/11 and T-88/12 are joined to the main actions.

3.	There is no further need to adjudicate in Case T-445/11.

4.	The action in Case T-88/12 is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

5.	Charron Inox and Almet shall pay all the costs of Case T-445/11.

6.	Charron Inox and Almet shall pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case T-88/12 and shall bear their own costs thereof.

7.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs in Case T-88/12.

(1) OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/22

Order of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament

(Case T-21/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Supply of audiovisual services to the Parliament - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Articles 94 and 103 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) no 1605/2002 - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2013/C 71/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alfacam (Lint, Belgium); Via Storia (Schiltigheim, France); DB Video Productions (Aartselaar, Belgium); IEC (Rennes, France) and European Broadcast Partners (Eubropa) (Aartselaar) (represented by: B. Pierart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: P. López-Carceller and C. Braunstein, and subsequently by: P. López-Carceller and G. Hellinckx, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 18 November 2011 to award lot No 1 in the call for tenders EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 relating to the provision of audiovisual services within the Parliament in Brussels (Belgium) to watch tv and of the Parliament’s decision of 18 November 2011 rejecting Eubropa’s bid for that lot.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/22

Action brought on 16 October 2012 — Wojciech Gęsina Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

(Case T-468/12)

2013/C 71/35

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Wojciech Gęsina Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2012 of 19 June 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea concerns adoption of the contested regulation by the Commission in breach of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) in particular through an incorrect interpretation of the explanatory notes to heading CN 9505, which finds expression in the determination that, as the decorative article does not contain any festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, it has not been exclusively designed and manufactured as a festive article and is not recognised as such.

In the applicant’s view, the content of heading CN 9505 and of the explanatory notes thereto shows that, in order for an article to be recognised as a festive article, it does not need to have specific imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions directly referring to a particular festivity.

The question whether an article is exclusively designed, manufactured and recognised as a festive article must be assessed in the light of the festivity-related symbolism attaching to a given article in a Member State and of the article’s connection with the festive tradition and culture in that State. Where such an article is recognisable in a given cultural circle as a festive article, it need not (but can) have additional symbols ornaments or inscriptions underlining its connection with a particular festivity.

The second plea concerns adoption of the contested regulation by the Commission in breach of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) concerning heading CN 9505, through an incorrect interpretation of the notes which consists in the determination that, as the decorative article does not contain any festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, it has not been exclusively designed and manufactured as a festive article and is not recognised as such.

The Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature clearly indicate that products classified under heading CN 9505 are according to their construction and design (imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions) intended to be used for a specific festivity. The words in brackets define merely by way of example what a product’s ‘construction and design’ might cover. In other words, the Combined Nomenclature does not exclude the situation where a product (as such) is a symbol of specific festivities in a particular cultural circle although the product does not bear any imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions.

The third plea concerns breach by the Commission of the principle of equal treatment by acceptance of a situation in which one category of products (artificial flowers and plants used for a festivity) is denied classification as festive articles because of a lack of festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, whereas other categories are so classified under heading CN 9505 even though the articles do not have such festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions.

In the course of trade in the European Union, binding tariff information issued by individual Member States exists that specifies classification under heading CN 9505 for articles (including artificial flowers) which do not bear particular symbols, designs or ornaments. This confirms that an article in itself, without inscriptions or ornaments, can be a symbol of specific festivities in the cultural circle of a particular Member State and is accordingly recognised, designed and manufactured there as a festive article.

Neither the notes on Chapter 95 of the Combined Nomenclature nor the commentary in the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature show that, in order for a product to acquire the status of a festive article, it must be recognised as festive throughout the European Union. Such an interpretation of ‘festive article’ would lead to a situation where only a few products would meet these criteria. More than 500 million citizens with different traditions and cultures and differing faiths live in the European Union. Therefore, not only is there no common festive tradition in the European Union but also the list of holidays in individual Member States differs. Finally, some products directly classified under heading 9505 are festive in nature only in some Member States and the corresponding tradition is not known, or is not very popular, in the other Member States.

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2008 C 133, p. 1.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/23

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/12)

2013/C 71/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mory SA (Pantin, France); Mory Team (Pantin) and Compagnie française superga d’investissement dans le service (CFSIS) (Miraumont, France) (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Annul the Commission Decision;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law in support of their action against Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, by which the Commission states that the obligation imposed on the Sernam companies to repay State aid by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1616 final of 9 March 2012 does not extend to the potential purchasers of the assets of the Sernam Group. (1)

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked the powers to adopt the contested decision and thus a misuse of powers, since the Commission is not competent to adopt a decision finding that the procedure adopted to execute the decision of 9 March 2012 does not constitute a circumvention of that procedure without a fresh in-depth investigation.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to apply the formal investigation procedure when verifying State aid in the event of serious concerns.

Third plea in law, alleging inconsistent subject-matter and reasons inasmuch as, firstly, the subject-matter of the decision referred to by the Commission and the actual content thereof do not equate to each other and, secondly, the decision applies contradictory criteria to assess the absence of economic continuity between the aided activities and the purchaser of those activities.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment as regards (i) the object of the sale, (ii) the transfer price, (iii) the moment when the transfer was effected, (iv) the degree of independence of the new owners and shareholders and (v) the economic logic of the transaction.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, inasmuch as the decision was adopted without it being ascertained that the transfer of the assets was made at their market value and without a study of the consequences of the fact that the purchaser belongs to the same group as that which distributed the unlawful aid.

(1) State aid No SA.34547 (2012/N) — France, in the notice to the Official Journal of the European Union OJ 2012 C 305, p. 10.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/24

Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission

(Case T-4/13)

2013/C 71/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Communicaid Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Brennan, Solicitor, F. Randolph, QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul each of the decisions of the European Commission of 30 October 2012 concerning lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 in response to Call for Tenders HR/R.3/PR/2012/002 for (Multiple) framework Contracts for provision of language training for staff of the Institutions, Bodies and Agencies of the European Union in Brussels (OJ 2012, S 45 72734), either, in part, in so far as they put CLL-Allingua in first place, or in their entirety; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment, and breached Article 94 of the Financial Regulation (1) by not excluding CLL-Allingua from the tender in circumstances where CLL-Allingua’s tender was assisted with by one of its employee who had worked in the relevant Commission Unit and on an evaluation committee for a closely comparable tender procedure in which both Communicaid and CLL-Allingua had participated, as well as during the preparatory stages of the tender, thus breaching his duty of loyalty to the EU and giving CLL-Allingua an unfair advantage over Communicaid.

Second plea in law, alleging the Commission infringed the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment and erred in its interpretation of Article III.2.2) of the Contract Notice (OJ 2012, S 45 72734), by determining that CLL-Allingua had the economic and financial capacity to service the tender, in circumstances where there was insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion, and CLL-Allingua ought, lawfully, to have failed to meet that precondition.

Third plea in law, alleging that there were a number of manifest errors of assessment under each of the four criteria, namely that the Evaluation Committee repeatedly assessed the tenders by reference to award sub-criteria that were not announced in advance, gave inconsistent markings resulting in Communicaid being awarded a lower score and CLL-Allingua a higher score across all lots for the technical evaluations, and failed to provided cogent reasons for its assessments.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/24

Action brought on 8 January 2013 — NICO v Council

(Case T-6/13)

2013/C 71/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, 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 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits five 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 grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, 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, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which has been confirmed by the Council to the applicant, while requests for access to documents were not replied to. The applicant states that by these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant claims that it is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd, as this company no longer exists in Jersey, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, the applicant finds that by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

(1) OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 58

(2) OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 16

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/25

Action brought on 4 January 2013 — ClientEarth e.a. v Commission

(Case T-8/13)

2013/C 71/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France); and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Union of 26 October 2012 (Ares(2012)1271350);

—	Order the Commission to pay to the applicants an amount to be fixed by the General Court in reparation of the material and non-material damages they have incurred; and

—	Order the commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants wished to make use of the rights provided to them by the Aarhus Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 September 2006) (1). Pursuant to that Regulation they submitted a request for Internal Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 582/2012 of 2 July 2012 (2) approving the active substance ‘bifenthrin’, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3). In their request the applicants referred to the case law of the General Court, through which an important question with respect to the Regulation was settled (Judgments of the General Court of 14 June 2012, Cases T-338/08 and T-396/09). However, the Commission decided, through its in this case contested decision of 26 October 2012, to declare the request for internal review not-admissible in spite of the fact that the earlier decisions of the Commission leading to the two judgments of 14 June 2012, which earlier decisions were entirely similar to the one taken in the current case, were annulled by the General Court given the Court’s finding that the Aarhus Regulation was partly unlawful, because it violated the terms of the Aarhus Convention (4). The European Union is a party to that Convention as are all the Member States of the EU.

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

First, the applicants contend that the Commission wrongfully failed to respect the General Court’s Judgments of 14 June 2012 in cases T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission and, T-396/09, Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission, T-396/09.

Second, the applicants contend that the restriction of the Aarhus Regulation to ‘administrative acts of individual scope’ establishes a violation of the European Union’s obligation to follow from the Aarhus Convention, in so far as Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 limits the concept of ‘acts’, as used in Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, to ‘administrative act(s)’ defined in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 as ‘measure(s) of individual scope’.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 582/2012 of 2 July 2012 approving the active substance bifenthrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 Text with EEA relevance

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC

(4) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Declarations (OJ 2005 L. 124, p. 4).

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/26

Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-20/13 P)

2013/C 71/40

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant requests the Court: (1a) to declare that there is no legal basis for the judgment delivered on 6 November 2012 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission or (1b), in the alternative, to set aside the judgment in its entirety; and (2a), given that the state of the proceedings so permits: (2aa) grant all claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance, including the claim that the EC (sic) be ordered to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings; or (2b), in the alternative, refer the case back to the court at first instance for a fresh decision on each of the claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment referred to above, which dismissed the action which had been referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 in Case T-20/09 Commission v Marcuccio, setting aside in part the judgment in Case F-41/06 ruling on the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 May 2005 by which he was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision, and on a claim that the Commission pay damages.

The appellant relies on 7 grounds of appeal.

1.	Errores in procedendo, affecting the appellant’s interests, inherent in the serious, patent, flagrant, spectacular, manifest, irremediable and vital errores in iudicando.

2.	Total failure to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

3.	The contested decision is unlawful on the grounds, inter alia, of lack of competence on the part of the author of the decision, defects in the decision-making procedure, entailing breach of essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers in the form of abuse of process.

4.	Distortion and misapplication of the facts.

5.	Incorrect, false and unreasonable (application and) breach of the rules on evidence and a number of legal principles and rules of law.

6.	Failure to rule on a number of fundamental aspects of the case.

7.	Unlawfulness of a ruling that a complaint made by the appellant concerning the contested decision was inadmissible.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/27

Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis)

(Case T-25/13)

2013/C 71/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sacra Srl (Venice, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 November 2012 in Case R 1601/2011-2;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of the initial action and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘4711 Aqua Mirabilis’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 988 181

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sacra Srl

Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark ‘Aqua Admirabilis’ for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/28

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 23 January 2013 — Katrakasas v Commission

(Case F-24/11) (1)

(Civil service - Internal competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 10 - Fraud prevention - Reconsideration of the decision to admit to take the oral test - Reconsideration of the decision not to include on the reserve list - Objection of illegality of the notice of competition - Conditions concerning diplomas and professional experience - Anonymity rule - Infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Subject of the written test favouring one category of candidates - Behaviour of a member of the selection board during the oral test)

2013/C 71/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Katrakasas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, Agent)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the competition selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list in competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.	Dismisses the application;

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

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p.33.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/28

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-92/12)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)

2013/C 71/47

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to withhold sums from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the purpose of recovering the sum which the applicant was ordered to pay by way of legal costs by the Civil Service Tribunal.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/28

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-95/12)

2013/C 71/48

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to withhold amounts from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the purpose of recovering the sum of EUR 3 000 paid to the applicant in compliance with an judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal which was subsequently set aside by the General Court of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/29

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-100/12)

(Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)

2013/C 71/49

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm he purportedly suffered on account of the delay in his retirement procedure under Article 53 of the Staff Rules and on account of the absence of any decision concerning a possible work-related origin of the illness which caused him to retire.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/29

Action brought on 26 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-126/12)

2013/C 71/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Boury, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application to annul the response to the complaint by which the applicant sought, firstly, the acknowledgement by the Commission that only certain documents in his personal administrative file may be transferred to the pre-trial judge at the Court of First Instance of Brussels, and, secondly, the finding of unlawfulness of the concealment from that Court of the decision of 2 February 2001.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the Appointing Authority’s response of 24 August 2012 to complaint No R/367/12;

—

acknowledge the unlawfulness of the concealment from the Belgian courts of his genuine administrative personal file, and of the Appointing Authority’s decision of 2 February 2001 and of all the documents relating to it, documents which were demanded from the Commission by the Belgian criminal courts;

—

acknowledge the unlawfulness of the transfer to the Court of Brussels of confidential documents produced without any legal check, and outside the rules of the Staff Regulations, within the former Unit ADMIN B9 responsible for the administrative investigation opened on 2 February 2001 by the Appointing Authority, in infringement of the rules of the Staff Regulations;

—	acknowledge the unlawfulness of the intervention in the investigation of his complaint to the Court of Brussels and with an objective which was detrimental to him by Commission officials who had neither the authority nor the competence to do so;

—

acknowledge that throughout that case he, as well as his family, was a victim of serious infringements of his fundamental human rights and that he suffered serious professional, non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage which is reparable only with difficulty and that, therefore, he is entitled to obtain compensation for that damage.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/29

Action brought on 2 November 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-130/12)

2013/C 71/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to grant the double dependant child allowance under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 4 August 2008, making the applicant’s right to the grant of the double dependant child allowance subject to the condition that ‘all of the specific costs required by the nature of the handicap and remaining chargeable’ to the applicant are higher than EUR 333.19 per month, and the decision of 24 October 2008 of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit, refusing in the present case to grant the double allowance, as confirmed after the reopening of the file by the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 5 December 2011, which was itself confirmed by the decision of 20 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified to the applicant on 23 July 2012;

—	order the Parliament to pay the costs.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/30

Action brought on 7 December 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA

(Case F-148/12)

2013/C 71/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision determining the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	Annul the decision of 9 March 2012 determining the 2012 appraisal report, which covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011;

—	So far as necessary, annul the implied decision of 26 October 2012 of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking the revision of his 2012 appraisal report;

—	Order the EMCDDA to pay the costs.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/30

Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-152/12)

2013/C 71/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions.

Form of order sought

—	Annul the decision of 26 March 2012 concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Commission under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

—	in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 3 September 2012 directed against the decision fixing the calculation of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service in the EU pension scheme;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/30

Action brought on 18 December 2012 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-154/12)

2013/C 71/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The partial annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s seniority in grade at 16 November 2011 at the time of his appointment to a post in the Administrators’ function group, after having received certification.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	Annul the part of the decision of 23 January 2012 which amends the applicant’s seniority in grade and fixes it at 16 November 2011 instead of 1 January 2011;

—	Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/31

Action brought on 20 December 2012 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-156/12)

2013/C 71/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to award damages for wrongful conduct on the part of the Committee of the Regions and application for compensation for material and non-material damage.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	annul the decision of 17 February 2012 dismissing his application of 19 October 2011 for damages for wrongful conduct on the part of the Committee of the Regions;

—	where necessary, annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 10 September 2012, notified the same day by email and on 12 September 2012 by letter sent by registered delivery with acknowledgement of receipt, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

—	order the Committee of the Regions to pay the sum of EUR 354 000 as compensation for material damage, that amount being determined on a provisional basis, and the sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for non-material damage, that amount being determined on a equitable basis;

—	order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

9.3.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/31

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-157/12)

2013/C 71/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant and of the implied decision terminating, with retroactive effect, her duties as adviser to the Director of a directorate of the European Parliament and claim for compensation.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	annul the decision of 20 June 2012 rejecting her complaint brought against the decision of 20 March 2012 to reassign her;

—	annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 20 March 2012 which terminated, with retroactive effect from 15 March 2012, the applicant’s duties as adviser to the Director and which transferred her, from that date, to a department of another directorate as an adviser;

—	acknowledge the damage suffered by the applicant on several levels (health, dignity, professional reputation, loss of equal opportunities in her career development) as a result of the instances of harassment and maladministration which have recurred since 2009;

—	order that financial reparation be made for that damage by granting the applicant damages which may be equitably evaluated at EUR 400 000;

—	order the Parliament to pay the costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.071.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 71

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 56 9 March 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 071/01	Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 63, 2.3.2013	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2013/C 071/02	Case C-529/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the common market — Obligation of recovery — Failure to comply with a Commission Decision — Objection of inadmissibility — Res judicata by means of a previous judgment of the Court)	2

2013/C 071/03	Case C-73/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Cancellation of 65 % of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Private creditor test — Limits of judicial review — Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision — Manifest error of assessment — Distortion of evidence)	2

2013/C 071/04	Joined Cases C-186/11 and C-209/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Stanleybet International LTD (C-186/11), William Hill Organization Ltd (C-186/11), William Hill Plc (C-186/11), Sportingbet plc (C-209/11) v Ypourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ypourgos Politismou (Articles 43 and 49 EC — National legislation granting an exclusive right for the running, management, organisation and operation of games of chance to a single undertaking, in the form of a public limited company listed on the stock exchange — Advertising of the games and expansion in other Member States of the European Union — State controls)	3

2013/C 071/05	Case C-283/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat — Austria) — Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk (Directive 2010/13/EU — Provision of audiovisual media services — Article 15(6) — Validity — Events of high interest to the public that are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights — Right of access of broadcasters to such events for the purpose of making short news reports — Limitation of possible compensation for the holder of the exclusive right to additional costs incurred in providing such access — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 17 — Proportionality)	3

2013/C 071/06	Case C-286/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2013 — European Commission v Tomkins plc (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for copper and copper alloy fittings — Liability of the parent company stemming solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary — Principle of ne ultra petita — Effect on the legal situation of the parent company of an annulment determined by a judgment concerning a subsidiary)	4

2013/C 071/07	Case C-646/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Falles Fagligt Forbund (3F), formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark (Appeal — State aid — Tax-reduction measures — Seafarers working on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register — Article 88(3) EC — Preliminary examination stage — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Conditions for initiating the formal investigation procedure — Existence of doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid with the common market — Period for the examination)	4

2013/C 071/08	Case C-534/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2012 in Case T-241/03 REV Marcuccio v Commission	5

2013/C 071/09	Case C-557/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 December 2012 — KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG	5

2013/C 071/10	Case C-579/12 RX: Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 11 December 2012 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2012 in Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack	6

2013/C 071/11	Case C-586/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission	6

2013/C 071/12	Case C-589/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 14 December 2012 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v GMAC UK PLC	7

2013/C 071/13	Case C-596/12: Action brought on 20 December 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic	8

2013/C 071/14	Case C-601/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2012 by Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-150/09: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union	8

2013/C 071/15	Case C-611/12 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2012 by Jean-François Giordano against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-114/11 Giordano v Commission	9

2013/C 071/16	Case C-612/12 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2012 by Ballast Nedam NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission	10

2013/C 071/17	Case C-2/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupreau SAS	11

2013/C 071/18	Case C-12/13 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by Gérard Buono. Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission	12

2013/C 071/19	Case C-13/13 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by the Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Louis Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission	12

2013/C 071/20	Case C-31/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2013 by Hungary against the judgment delivered on 18 November 2012 in Case T-194/10 Hungary v Commission	13

	General Court
2013/C 071/21	Case T-474/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (JACKSON SHOES) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark JACKSON SHOES — Earlier national business name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB — Relative ground for refusal — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	15

2013/C 071/22	Joined Cases T-339/10 and T-532/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Cosepuri v EFSA (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Shuttle service in Italy and Europe — Tenderer’s bid rejected — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Non-contractual liability — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Bid of the successful tenderer — Access refused — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)	15

2013/C 071/23	Case T-496/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment)	16

2013/C 071/24	Case T-25/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community three-dimensional mark — Manual tile-cutting machine — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)	16

2013/C 071/25	Case T-189/11: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DISCO DESIGNER — Earlier figurative Community mark DISCO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	17

2013/C 071/26	Case T-283/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark nfon — Earlier Community trade mark fon and earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for alteration)	17

2013/C 071/27	Case T-662/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Sunless — Earlier Community word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	18

2013/C 071/28	Case T-218/00: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)	18

2013/C 071/29	Case T-262/00: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Vigile San Marco v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)	19

2013/C 071/30	Case T-263/00: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Navale v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)	19

2013/C 071/31	Case T-403/05 RENV: Order of the General Court of 10 January 2013 — MyTravel v Commission (Access to institutions’ documents — Documents concerning a merger decision annulled by the General Court — Refusal to grant access — No need to adjudicate)	20

2013/C 071/32	Case T-497/10: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2013 — Divandari v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)	20

2013/C 071/33	Joined Cases T-445/11 and T-88/12: Order of the General Court of 11 January 2013 — Charron Inox and Almet v Council and Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China — Provisional antidumping duty — No need to adjudicate — Definitive antidumping duty — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)	21

2013/C 071/34	Case T-21/12: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Supply of audiovisual services to the Parliament — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Articles 94 and 103 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) no 1605/2002 — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)	22

2013/C 071/35	Case T-468/12: Action brought on 16 October 2012 — Wojciech Gęsina Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission	22

2013/C 071/36	Case T-545/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission	23

2013/C 071/37	Case T-4/13: Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission	24

2013/C 071/38	Case T-6/13: Action brought on 8 January 2013 — NICO v Council	24

2013/C 071/39	Case T-8/13: Action brought on 4 January 2013 — ClientEarth e.a. v Commission	25

2013/C 071/40	Case T-20/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission	26

2013/C 071/41	Case T-25/13: Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis)	27

2013/C 071/42	Joined Cases T-445/09 and T-448/09: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission	27

2013/C 071/43	Joined Cases T-447/09 and T-449/09: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission	27

2013/C 071/44	Case T-125/11: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission	27

2013/C 071/45	Case T-167/11: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission	27

	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2013/C 071/46	Case F-24/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 23 January 2013 — Katrakasas v Commission (Civil service — Internal competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 10 — Fraud prevention — Reconsideration of the decision to admit to take the oral test — Reconsideration of the decision not to include on the reserve list — Objection of illegality of the notice of competition — Conditions concerning diplomas and professional experience — Anonymity rule — Infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Subject of the written test favouring one category of candidates — Behaviour of a member of the selection board during the oral test)	28

2013/C 071/47	Case F-92/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)	28

2013/C 071/48	Case F-95/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)	28

2013/C 071/49	Case F-100/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)	29

2013/C 071/50	Case F-126/12: Action brought on 26 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission	29

2013/C 071/51	Case F-130/12: Action brought on 2 November 2012 — ZZ v Parliament	29

2013/C 071/52	Case F-148/12: Action brought on 7 December 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA	30

2013/C 071/53	Case F-152/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission	30

2013/C 071/54	Case F-154/12: Action brought on 18 December 2012 — ZZ v EEAS	30

2013/C 071/55	Case F-156/12: Action brought on 20 December 2012 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions	31

2013/C 071/56	Case F-157/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — ZZ v Parliament	31