# Official Journal C 211/13 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 211 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5913 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 211

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5913 June 2016

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 211/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 211/01

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2016/C 211/02 | Case C-200/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Combating nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure for the adoption of the act — Manifest error of assessment) | 2 |
| 2016/C 211/03 | Case C-366/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Profit Investment Sim SpA, in liquidation v Stefano Ossi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Concept of irreconcilable judgments — Actions having different subject-matters brought against several defendants domiciled in various Member States — Conditions for the prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Verification of the lack of a valid contractual link) | 3 |
| 2016/C 211/04 | Case C-689/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Puligienica Facility Esco SpA (PFE) v Airgest SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Review procedures — Application for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was not successful — Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer — Rule derived from national case-law under which the counterclaim must be examined first and, if the counterclaim is well founded, the main action must be dismissed as inadmissible without any examination of the merits — Whether compatible with EU law — Article 267 TFEU — Principle of the primacy of EU law — Principle of law stated by decision of the plenary session of the supreme administrative court of a Member State — National legislation which provides that that decision is binding on the chambers of that court — Obligation on the part of the chamber required to adjudicate on a question of EU law to refer that question to the plenary session if it disagrees with the decision of the plenary session — Whether the chamber has a discretion or is under an obligation to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice) | 4 |
| 2016/C 211/05 | Case C-131/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 — Article 3(3) — Tariff quota — Garlic of Argentinian origin — Import licences — Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences — Circumvention — Abuse of rights — Conditions — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3)) | 5 |
| 2016/C 211/06 | Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C 193/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission and Council of the European Union v Italian Republic and Others (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(5), (7) and (9) — Article 6(1) — Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Determination of a threat of injury — Taking into account of post-investigation period data) | 6 |
| 2016/C 211/07 | Case C-294/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Community Customs Code — Tariff Preferences — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 74(1) — Products originating from a beneficiary country — Transport — Consignments composed of a mixture of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment) | 7 |
| 2016/C 211/08 | Case C-315/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Indemnity in respect of customers — Conditions for granting — Acquisition of new customers — Concept of new customers — Principal’s customers purchasing, for the first time, goods which the commercial agent was assigned to sell) | 8 |
| 2016/C 211/09 | Case C-324/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Partner Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators — Article 48(3) — Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities — Conditions and procedures — Nature of the links between the tenderer and the other entities — Amendment of the tender — Annulment and repetition of an electronic auction — Directive 2014/24/EU) | 8 |
| 2016/C 211/10 | Case C-377/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v FINWAY a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — National rules governing insolvency proceedings — Debts arising from a consumer credit agreement — Effective judicial remedy — Point 1(e) of the annex — Disproportionate amount of compensation — Directive 2008/48/EC — Article 3(l) — Total amount of credit — Point I of Annex I — Amount of drawdown — Calculation of the annual percentage rate — Article 10(2) — Obligation to provide information — Ex officio examination — Penalty) | 10 |
| 2016/C 211/11 | Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — Floor clause — Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation — Collective proceedings — Action for an injunction — Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter) | 11 |
| 2016/C 211/12 | Case C-397/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 28 — Non-geographic numbers — Access by end-users residing in the Member State for operators to services using non-geographic numbers — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 5, 8 and 13 — Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection — Imposition, amendment or withdrawal of obligations — Imposition of obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users — Price control — Undertaking not having significant market power on the market — Directive 2002/21/EC — Resolution of disputes between undertakings — Decision of the national regulatory authority laying down the conditions of cooperation and the pricing procedures for services between undertakings) | 11 |
| 2016/C 211/13 | Case C-441/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation incompatible with the directive — Possibility for a private person to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the State for breach of EU law — Dispute between private persons — Balancing of various rights and principles — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Role of the national court) | 12 |
| 2016/C 211/14 | Case C-460/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract) | 13 |
| 2016/C 211/15 | Case C-483/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention — Applicable law — Cross-border merger — Directive 78/855/EEC — Directive 2005/56/EC — Merger by acquisition — Protection of creditors — Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company) | 14 |
| 2016/C 211/16 | Case C-522/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax — Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information) | 14 |
| 2016/C 211/17 | Case C-546/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — proceedings by Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — Insolvency — Procedure for an arrangement with creditors — Partial payment of VAT debts) | 15 |
| 2016/C 211/18 | Case C-556/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Articles 19 and 20 — Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 — Article 10 — System of registries for transactions concerning emission allowances — Liability for fault — Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving stolen emission allowances — Strict liability) | 16 |
| 2016/C 211/19 | Case C-558/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Mimoun Khachab v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(1)(c) — Family reunification — Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Stable and regular resources which are sufficient — National legislation permitting a prospective assessment of the likelihood that the sponsor will retain his resources — Compatibility) | 16 |
| 2016/C 211/20 | Case C-561/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Family reunification — National legislation laying down new, more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members, who are not economically active, of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in the Member State in question — Condition requiring ties sufficient to enable successful integration) | 17 |
| 2016/C 211/21 | Case C-572/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Article 5(3) — Concept of tort, delict or quasi-delict — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Article 5(2)(b) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Reproduction for private use — Fair compensation — Non-payment — Whether included in the scope of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) | 18 |
| 2016/C 211/22 | Case C-5/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Objection to refusal of authorisation for care) | 18 |
| 2016/C 211/23 | Case C-100/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Insufficient and incomplete examination — Obligation to state reasons — Selectivity) | 19 |
| 2016/C 211/24 | Case C-193/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Set of indicia — Distortion of the sense of the evidence) | 20 |
| 2016/C 211/25 | Case C-266/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Financial services of a central bank) | 20 |
| 2016/C 211/26 | Case C-284/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Brussels — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 45 TFEU and Article 48 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15(2) — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 67(3) — Social security — Unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment — Award of that benefit — Completion of periods of employment — Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment — Taking into account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State) | 21 |
| 2016/C 211/27 | Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal to execute — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State) | 21 |
| 2016/C 211/28 | Case C-84/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2015 in Case T-525/14: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 22 |
| 2016/C 211/29 | Case C-106/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o. | 23 |
| 2016/C 211/30 | Case C-113/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal | 24 |
| 2016/C 211/31 | Case C-114/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság | 25 |
| 2016/C 211/32 | Case C-129/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség | 25 |
| 2016/C 211/33 | Case C-131/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. | 26 |
| 2016/C 211/34 | Case C-135/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 27 |
| 2016/C 211/35 | Case C-144/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações | 27 |
| 2016/C 211/36 | Case C-147/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers | 28 |
| 2016/C 211/37 | Case C-156/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2016 — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut | 29 |
| 2016/C 211/38 | Case C-158/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias | 30 |
| 2016/C 211/39 | Case C-163/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV | 30 |
| 2016/C 211/40 | Case C-172/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG | 31 |
| 2016/C 211/41 | Case C-173/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 29 March 2016 — M.H. v M.H. | 31 |
| 2016/C 211/42 | Case C-183/16 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission | 32 |
| 2016/C 211/43 | Case C-184/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 1 April 2016 — Ovidiu-Mihaita Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis (Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction) | 33 |
| 2016/C 211/44 | Case C-189/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten | 34 |
| 2016/C 211/45 | Case C-194/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB | 35 |
| 2016/C 211/46 | Case C-199/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga | 36 |
| 2016/C 211/47 | Case C-200/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA and Others | 36 |
| 2016/C 211/48 | Case C-203/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2016 by Mr Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH), formerly Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission | 37 |
| 2016/C 211/49 | Case C-208/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission | 38 |
| 2016/C 211/50 | Case C-228/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2016 by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) against the order made by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 9 February 2016 in Case T-639/14 Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) v European Commission | 39 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 211/51 | Case T-221/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file — Action for annulment — Implied and express refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability) | 41 |
| 2016/C 211/52 | Case T-556/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Software development and maintenance services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Classification of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Grounds for exclusion — Conflict of interest — Equal treatment — Duty of diligence — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Loss of opportunity) | 42 |
| 2016/C 211/53 | Case T-316/13: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Reconstitution of stocks of bluefin tuna — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals) | 43 |
| 2016/C 211/54 | Case T-154/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Perform and Oasis projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest) | 44 |
| 2016/C 211/55 | Case T-155/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Persona and Terregov projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest) | 44 |
| 2016/C 211/56 | Case T-267/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Zehnder Group International v EUIPO — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark comfotherm — Earlier national word mark KOMFOTHERM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Relevant public — Interdependence of factors) | 45 |
| 2016/C 211/57 | Case T-463/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Österreichische Post v Commission (Directive 2004/17/EC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Implementing decision exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17 — Article 30 of Directive2004/17 — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 46 |
| 2016/C 211/58 | Case T-777/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Fon Wireless v EUIPO — Henniger (Neofon) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Neofon — Earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 47 |
| 2016/C 211/59 | Case T-803/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue — Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 47 |
| 2016/C 211/60 | Case T-21/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 48 |
| 2016/C 211/61 | Case T-52/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Sharif University of Technology v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Support to the Government of Iran — Research and technology development in military or military-related fields — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of law and error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Claim for damages) | 49 |
| 2016/C 211/62 | Case T-54/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Liiga — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 49 |
| 2016/C 211/63 | Case T-89/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NIAGARA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 50 |
| 2016/C 211/64 | Case T-144/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA — Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 51 |
| 2016/C 211/65 | Case T-539/13: Order of the General Court of 21 April 2016 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (Action for annulment — Seventh framework programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) — MARE, Senior and ECRN projects — Recovery of a share of the financial contribution paid — Enforcement decision — Nature of the pleas relied on — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 51 |
| 2016/C 211/66 | Case T-83/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA) | 52 |
| 2016/C 211/67 | Case T-84/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba) | 53 |
| 2016/C 211/68 | Case T-115/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON) | 54 |
| 2016/C 211/69 | Case T-142/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission | 55 |
| 2016/C 211/70 | Case T-149/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission | 56 |
| 2016/C 211/71 | Case T-150/16: Action brought on 6 April 2016 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB) | 57 |
| 2016/C 211/72 | Case T-152/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Megasol Energie v Commission | 58 |
| 2016/C 211/73 | Case T-155/16: Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE) | 59 |
| 2016/C 211/74 | Case T-156/16: Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM) | 60 |
| 2016/C 211/75 | Case T-159/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA) | 61 |
| 2016/C 211/76 | Case T-172/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission | 61 |
| 2016/C 211/77 | Case T-174/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) | 62 |
| 2016/C 211/78 | Case T-175/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) | 63 |
| 2016/C 211/79 | Case T-177/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078)) | 64 |
| 2016/C 211/80 | Case T-178/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor) | 65 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 211/81 | Case F-141/15: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 66 |
| 2016/C 211/82 | Case F-101/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 April 2016 — Claus v Commission | 66 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 211/02

Case C-200/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Combating nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure for the adoption of the act — Manifest error of assessment)

2

2016/C 211/03

Case C-366/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Profit Investment Sim SpA, in liquidation v Stefano Ossi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Concept of irreconcilable judgments — Actions having different subject-matters brought against several defendants domiciled in various Member States — Conditions for the prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause — Concept of matters relating to a contract — Verification of the lack of a valid contractual link)

3

2016/C 211/04

Case C-689/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Puligienica Facility Esco SpA (PFE) v Airgest SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) and (3) — Review procedures — Application for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was not successful — Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer — Rule derived from national case-law under which the counterclaim must be examined first and, if the counterclaim is well founded, the main action must be dismissed as inadmissible without any examination of the merits — Whether compatible with EU law — Article 267 TFEU — Principle of the primacy of EU law — Principle of law stated by decision of the plenary session of the supreme administrative court of a Member State — National legislation which provides that that decision is binding on the chambers of that court — Obligation on the part of the chamber required to adjudicate on a question of EU law to refer that question to the plenary session if it disagrees with the decision of the plenary session — Whether the chamber has a discretion or is under an obligation to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice)

4

2016/C 211/05

Case C-131/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 — Article 3(3) — Tariff quota — Garlic of Argentinian origin — Import licences — Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences — Circumvention — Abuse of rights — Conditions — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3))

5

2016/C 211/06

Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C 193/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission and Council of the European Union v Italian Republic and Others (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(5), (7) and (9) — Article 6(1) — Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Determination of a threat of injury — Taking into account of post-investigation period data)

6

2016/C 211/07

Case C-294/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Community Customs Code — Tariff Preferences — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 74(1) — Products originating from a beneficiary country — Transport — Consignments composed of a mixture of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment)

7

2016/C 211/08

Case C-315/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Indemnity in respect of customers — Conditions for granting — Acquisition of new customers — Concept of new customers — Principal’s customers purchasing, for the first time, goods which the commercial agent was assigned to sell)

8

2016/C 211/09

Case C-324/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Partner Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators — Article 48(3) — Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities — Conditions and procedures — Nature of the links between the tenderer and the other entities — Amendment of the tender — Annulment and repetition of an electronic auction — Directive 2014/24/EU)

8

2016/C 211/10

Case C-377/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v FINWAY a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — National rules governing insolvency proceedings — Debts arising from a consumer credit agreement — Effective judicial remedy — Point 1(e) of the annex — Disproportionate amount of compensation — Directive 2008/48/EC — Article 3(l) — Total amount of credit — Point I of Annex I — Amount of drawdown — Calculation of the annual percentage rate — Article 10(2) — Obligation to provide information — Ex officio examination — Penalty)

10

2016/C 211/11

Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — Floor clause — Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation — Collective proceedings — Action for an injunction — Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter)

11

2016/C 211/12

Case C-397/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 28 — Non-geographic numbers — Access by end-users residing in the Member State for operators to services using non-geographic numbers — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 5, 8 and 13 — Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection — Imposition, amendment or withdrawal of obligations — Imposition of obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users — Price control — Undertaking not having significant market power on the market — Directive 2002/21/EC — Resolution of disputes between undertakings — Decision of the national regulatory authority laying down the conditions of cooperation and the pricing procedures for services between undertakings)

11

2016/C 211/13

Case C-441/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2000/78/EC — Principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age — National legislation incompatible with the directive — Possibility for a private person to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the State for breach of EU law — Dispute between private persons — Balancing of various rights and principles — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Role of the national court)

12

2016/C 211/14

Case C-460/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract)

13

2016/C 211/15

Case C-483/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rome Convention — Applicable law — Cross-border merger — Directive 78/855/EEC — Directive 2005/56/EC — Merger by acquisition — Protection of creditors — Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company)

14

2016/C 211/16

Case C-522/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax — Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information)

14

2016/C 211/17

Case C-546/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — proceedings by Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Directive 2006/112/EC — Insolvency — Procedure for an arrangement with creditors — Partial payment of VAT debts)

15

2016/C 211/18

Case C-556/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Articles 19 and 20 — Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 — Article 10 — System of registries for transactions concerning emission allowances — Liability for fault — Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving stolen emission allowances — Strict liability)

16

2016/C 211/19

Case C-558/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Mimoun Khachab v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(1)(c) — Family reunification — Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification — Stable and regular resources which are sufficient — National legislation permitting a prospective assessment of the likelihood that the sponsor will retain his resources — Compatibility)

16

2016/C 211/20

Case C-561/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Family reunification — National legislation laying down new, more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members, who are not economically active, of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in the Member State in question — Condition requiring ties sufficient to enable successful integration)

17

2016/C 211/21

Case C-572/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Article 5(3) — Concept of tort, delict or quasi-delict — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Article 5(2)(b) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Reproduction for private use — Fair compensation — Non-payment — Whether included in the scope of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001)

18

2016/C 211/22

Case C-5/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Objection to refusal of authorisation for care)

*1

18

2016/C 211/23

Case C-100/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Insufficient and incomplete examination — Obligation to state reasons — Selectivity)

19

2016/C 211/24

Case C-193/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Set of indicia — Distortion of the sense of the evidence)

20

2016/C 211/25

Case C-266/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Financial services of a central bank)

20

2016/C 211/26

Case C-284/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Brussels — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 45 TFEU and Article 48 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15(2) — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 67(3) — Social security — Unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment — Award of that benefit — Completion of periods of employment — Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment — Taking into account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State)

21

2016/C 211/27

Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal to execute — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State)

21

2016/C 211/28

Case C-84/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2015 in Case T-525/14: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v European Union Intellectual Property Office

22

2016/C 211/29

Case C-106/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.

23

2016/C 211/30

Case C-113/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

24

2016/C 211/31

Case C-114/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

25

2016/C 211/32

Case C-129/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

25

2016/C 211/33

Case C-131/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.

26

2016/C 211/34

Case C-135/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

27

2016/C 211/35

Case C-144/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

27

2016/C 211/36

Case C-147/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

28

2016/C 211/37

Case C-156/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2016 — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut

29

2016/C 211/38

Case C-158/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias

30

2016/C 211/39

Case C-163/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV

30

2016/C 211/40

Case C-172/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

31

2016/C 211/41

Case C-173/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 29 March 2016 — M.H. v M.H.

31

2016/C 211/42

Case C-183/16 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission

Tilly-Sabco

Commission

32

2016/C 211/43

Case C-184/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 1 April 2016 — Ovidiu-Mihaita Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis (Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction)

33

2016/C 211/44

Case C-189/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten

34

2016/C 211/45

Case C-194/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB

35

2016/C 211/46

Case C-199/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga

36

2016/C 211/47

Case C-200/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA and Others

36

2016/C 211/48

Case C-203/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2016 by Mr Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH), formerly Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission

37

2016/C 211/49

Case C-208/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission

38

2016/C 211/50

Case C-228/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2016 by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) against the order made by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 9 February 2016 in Case T-639/14 Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) v European Commission

39

General Court

2016/C 211/51

Case T-221/08: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file — Action for annulment — Implied and express refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)

41

2016/C 211/52

Case T-556/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Software development and maintenance services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Classification of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Grounds for exclusion — Conflict of interest — Equal treatment — Duty of diligence — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Loss of opportunity)

42

2016/C 211/53

Case T-316/13: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Reconstitution of stocks of bluefin tuna — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

43

2016/C 211/54

Case T-154/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Perform and Oasis projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest)

44

2016/C 211/55

Case T-155/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Persona and Terregov projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest)

44

2016/C 211/56

Case T-267/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Zehnder Group International v EUIPO — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark comfotherm — Earlier national word mark KOMFOTHERM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Relevant public — Interdependence of factors)

45

2016/C 211/57

Case T-463/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Österreichische Post v Commission (Directive 2004/17/EC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Implementing decision exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17 — Article 30 of Directive2004/17 — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

46

2016/C 211/58

Case T-777/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Fon Wireless v EUIPO — Henniger (Neofon) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Neofon — Earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

47

2016/C 211/59

Case T-803/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue — Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

47

2016/C 211/60

Case T-21/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

48

2016/C 211/61

Case T-52/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Sharif University of Technology v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Support to the Government of Iran — Research and technology development in military or military-related fields — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of law and error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Claim for damages)

49

2016/C 211/62

Case T-54/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Liiga — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

49

2016/C 211/63

Case T-89/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NIAGARA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

50

2016/C 211/64

Case T-144/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA — Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

51

2016/C 211/65

Case T-539/13: Order of the General Court of 21 April 2016 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (Action for annulment — Seventh framework programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) — MARE, Senior and ECRN projects — Recovery of a share of the financial contribution paid — Enforcement decision — Nature of the pleas relied on — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

51

2016/C 211/66

Case T-83/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)

52

2016/C 211/67

Case T-84/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)

53

2016/C 211/68

Case T-115/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON)

54

2016/C 211/69

Case T-142/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission

55

2016/C 211/70

Case T-149/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

56

2016/C 211/71

Case T-150/16: Action brought on 6 April 2016 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)

57

2016/C 211/72

Case T-152/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Megasol Energie v Commission

58

2016/C 211/73

Case T-155/16: Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE)

59

2016/C 211/74

Case T-156/16: Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)

60

2016/C 211/75

Case T-159/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

61

2016/C 211/76

Case T-172/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission

61

2016/C 211/77

Case T-174/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

62

2016/C 211/78

Case T-175/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

63

2016/C 211/79

Case T-177/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))

64

2016/C 211/80

Case T-178/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)

65

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 211/81

Case F-141/15: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

66

2016/C 211/82

Case F-101/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 April 2016 — Claus v Commission

66

---

| | |
| --- | --- |

---

| EN | For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore and therefore a new authentic version has been published. |
| --- | --- |

EN

For reasons of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore and therefore a new authentic version has been published.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 211/01)

Last publication

OJ C 200, 6.6.2016

Past publications

OJ C 191, 30.5.2016

OJ C 175, 17.5.2016

OJ C 165, 10.5.2016

OJ C 156, 2.5.2016

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission

(Case C-200/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Combating nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure for the adoption of the act - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 211/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Saderat Iran (represented by: D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and by S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Dismisses the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the cross-appeal;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Saderat Iran in both sets of proceedings, except for the costs relating to the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Saderat Iran in both sets of proceedings, except for the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

| 4. | Orders Bank Saderat Iran to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Bank Saderat Iran to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the cross-appeal.

| 5. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs of both sets of proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Profit Investment Sim SpA, in liquidation v Stefano Ossi and Others

(Case C-366/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Concept of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ - Actions having different subject-matters brought against several defendants domiciled in various Member States - Conditions for the prorogation of jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Verification of the lack of a valid contractual link))

(2016/C 211/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profit Investment Sim SpA, in liquidation

Defendants: Stefano Ossi, Commerzbank Brand Dresdner Bank AG, Andrea Mirone, Eugenio Magli, Francesco Redi, Profit Holding SpA, in liquidation, Redi & Partners Ltd, Enrico Fiore, E3 SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | where a jurisdiction clause is included in a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds, the formal requirement laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 is met only if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance of that clause or contains an express reference to that prospectus; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

where a jurisdiction clause is included in a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds, the formal requirement laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 is met only if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance of that clause or contains an express reference to that prospectus;

| — | a jurisdiction clause contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established, which it is for the referring to verify, that (i) that clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the financial intermediary, (ii) the third party, by acquiring those bonds on the secondary market, succeeded to the financial intermediary’s rights and obligations attached to those bonds under the applicable national law, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing that clause; and |
| --- | --- |

—

a jurisdiction clause contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established, which it is for the referring to verify, that (i) that clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the financial intermediary, (ii) the third party, by acquiring those bonds on the secondary market, succeeded to the financial intermediary’s rights and obligations attached to those bonds under the applicable national law, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing that clause; and

| — | the insertion of a jurisdiction clause into a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds may be regarded as a form which accords with a usage in international trade or commerce, for the purpose of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, allowing the consent of the person against whom it is relied upon to be presumed, provided inter alia that it is established, which it is for the referring court to verify, (i) that such conduct is generally and regularly followed by the operators in the particular trade or commerce concerned when contracts of that type are concluded and (ii) either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that the conduct in question is sufficiently well known to be considered an established practice. |
| --- | --- |

—

the insertion of a jurisdiction clause into a prospectus concerning the issue of bonds may be regarded as a form which accords with a usage in international trade or commerce, for the purpose of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, allowing the consent of the person against whom it is relied upon to be presumed, provided inter alia that it is established, which it is for the referring court to verify, (i) that such conduct is generally and regularly followed by the operators in the particular trade or commerce concerned when contracts of that type are concluded and (ii) either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that the conduct in question is sufficiently well known to be considered an established practice.

| 2. | Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that actions seeking the annulment of a contract and the restitution of sums paid but not due on the basis of that contract constitute ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that actions seeking the annulment of a contract and the restitution of sums paid but not due on the basis of that contract constitute ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision.

| 3. | Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that where two actions — which have different subject-matters and bases and which are not connected by a link of subordination or incompatibility — are brought against several defendants, the fact that the upholding of one of those actions is potentially capable of affecting the extent of the right whose protection is sought by the other action does not suffice to give rise to a risk of irreconcilable judgments within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that where two actions — which have different subject-matters and bases and which are not connected by a link of subordination or incompatibility — are brought against several defendants, the fact that the upholding of one of those actions is potentially capable of affecting the extent of the right whose protection is sought by the other action does not suffice to give rise to a risk of irreconcilable judgments within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Puligienica Facility Esco SpA (PFE) v Airgest SpA

(Case C-689/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) and (3) - Review procedures - Application for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was not successful - Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer - Rule derived from national case-law under which the counterclaim must be examined first and, if the counterclaim is well founded, the main action must be dismissed as inadmissible without any examination of the merits - Whether compatible with EU law - Article 267 TFEU - Principle of the primacy of EU law - Principle of law stated by decision of the plenary session of the supreme administrative court of a Member State - National legislation which provides that that decision is binding on the chambers of that court - Obligation on the part of the chamber required to adjudicate on a question of EU law to refer that question to the plenary session if it disagrees with the decision of the plenary session - Whether the chamber has a discretion or is under an obligation to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice))

(2016/C 211/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Puligienica Facility Esco SpA (PFE)

Defendant: Airgest SpA

Intervening parties: Gestione Servizi Ambientali Srl (GSA), Zenith Services Group Srl (ZS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, are to be interpreted as meaning that a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who has been or may be adversely affected by an alleged breach of EU public procurement law or rules transposing that law, with a view to excluding another tenderer, cannot be dismissed as inadmissible under national procedural rules which provide that the counterclaim lodged by the other tenderer must be examined first. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, are to be interpreted as meaning that a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who has been or may be adversely affected by an alleged breach of EU public procurement law or rules transposing that law, with a view to excluding another tenderer, cannot be dismissed as inadmissible under national procedural rules which provide that the counterclaim lodged by the other tenderer must be examined first.

| 2. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, in so far as that provision is interpreted to the effect that, where a question concerning the interpretation or validity of EU law arises, a chamber of a court of final instance must, if it does not concur with the position adopted by decision of that court sitting in plenary session, refer the question to the plenary session and is thus precluded from itself making a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, in so far as that provision is interpreted to the effect that, where a question concerning the interpretation or validity of EU law arises, a chamber of a court of final instance must, if it does not concur with the position adopted by decision of that court sitting in plenary session, refer the question to the plenary session and is thus precluded from itself making a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

| 3. | Article 267 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that, after receiving the answer of the Court of Justice of the European Union to a question concerning the interpretation of EU law which it has submitted to the Court, or where the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union already provides a clear answer to that question, a chamber of a court of final instance is itself required to do everything necessary to ensure that that interpretation of EU law is applied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 267 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that, after receiving the answer of the Court of Justice of the European Union to a question concerning the interpretation of EU law which it has submitted to the Court, or where the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union already provides a clear answer to that question, a chamber of a court of final instance is itself required to do everything necessary to ensure that that interpretation of EU law is applied.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

(Case C-131/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 - Article 3(3) - Tariff quota - Garlic of Argentinian origin - Import licences - Non-transferability of rights deriving from import licences - Circumvention - Abuse of rights - Conditions - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 4(3)))

(2016/C 211/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

Defendants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Intervening party: Roberto Cervati

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 of 2 April 2002 establishing the method for managing tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries and Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that they do not, in principle, preclude a mechanism, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby, following an order placed by an operator, a traditional importer within the meaning of the former regulation, having exhausted its licences to import at a preferential rate of duty, with a second operator, also a traditional importer not holding such licences,

| — | goods are, first of all, sold, outside the European Union, by an undertaking connected with the second operator, to a third operator, a new importer within the meaning of the former regulation, holding such licences, |
| --- | --- |

—

goods are, first of all, sold, outside the European Union, by an undertaking connected with the second operator, to a third operator, a new importer within the meaning of the former regulation, holding such licences,

| — | the goods are, then, released for free circulation in the European Union by the third operator at the preferential rate of customs duty, subsequently sold on by the third to the second operator and |
| --- | --- |

—

the goods are, then, released for free circulation in the European Union by the third operator at the preferential rate of customs duty, subsequently sold on by the third to the second operator and

| — | the goods are, finally, sold by the second to the first operator, which thereby acquires goods imported under the tariff quota set out in the former regulation despite the fact that the first operator does not hold the necessary licences for so doing. |
| --- | --- |

—

the goods are, finally, sold by the second to the first operator, which thereby acquires goods imported under the tariff quota set out in the former regulation despite the fact that the first operator does not hold the necessary licences for so doing.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission and Council of the European Union v Italian Republic and Others

(Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C 193/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(5), (7) and (9) - Article 6(1) - Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of a threat of injury - Taking into account of post-investigation period data))

(2016/C 211/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-186/14 P)

Appellants: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, formerly V & M France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, Q. Azau and H. Wiame, avocats, and by F. Carlin, Barrister), Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

(Case C-193/14 P)

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by A. Collabolletta, avvocato dello Stato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, M. Healy, Solicitor, N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, and Q. Azau and H. Wiame, avocats), European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, formerly V & M France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P;

| 2. | Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-294/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Community Customs Code - Tariff Preferences - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 74(1) - Products originating from a beneficiary country - Transport - Consignments composed of a mixture of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment))

(2016/C 211/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ADM Hamburg AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 74(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1063/2010 of 18 November 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where valid certificates of origin have been presented, the preferential origin, within the meaning of the generalised system of preferences established by Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007, of consignments of crude palm kernel oil may be recognised even where those products have been mixed in the tank of a vessel at the time of their transport to the European Union in circumstances where it is possible to rule out that other products, in particular products not benefiting from any preferential treatment, have been added to that tank.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

(Case C-315/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2) - Indemnity in respect of customers - Conditions for granting - Acquisition of new customers - Concept of ‘new customers’ - Principal’s customers purchasing, for the first time, goods which the commercial agent was assigned to sell))

(2016/C 211/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marchon Germany GmbH

Defendant: Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that customers brought in by the commercial agent for the goods that he has been assigned by the principal to sell must be regarded as new customers, within the meaning of that provision, in the case where, even though those customers already had business relations with that principal in relation to other goods, the sale, by that agent, of the first goods required the establishment of specific business relations, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Partner Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta

(Case C-324/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators - Article 48(3) - Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities - Conditions and procedures - Nature of the links between the tenderer and the other entities - Amendment of the tender - Annulment and repetition of an electronic auction - Directive 2014/24/EU))

(2016/C 211/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Partner Apelski Dariusz

Defendant: Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta

Intervening parties: Remondis sp. z o.o., MR Road Service sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read together with Article 44(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | they recognise the right of all economic operators, as regards a specific contract, to rely on the capacities of other entities, whatever the nature of the links existing between it and those entities, provided that it is proved to the contracting authority that the candidate or tenderer will have at its disposal the resources of those entities necessary for the performance of that contract, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read together with Article 44(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

they recognise the right of all economic operators, as regards a specific contract, to rely on the capacities of other entities, whatever the nature of the links existing between it and those entities, provided that it is proved to the contracting authority that the candidate or tenderer will have at its disposal the resources of those entities necessary for the performance of that contract, and

| — | it is conceivable that the exercise of that right may be limited, in specific circumstances, having regard to the subject matter of the contract concerned and its objectives. Such is the case, in particular, where the capacities that a third party entity has, which are necessary for the performance of that contract, cannot be transferred to the candidate or the tenderer, so that the latter may rely on those capacities only if that third party entity directly and personally participates in the performance of that contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

it is conceivable that the exercise of that right may be limited, in specific circumstances, having regard to the subject matter of the contract concerned and its objectives. Such is the case, in particular, where the capacities that a third party entity has, which are necessary for the performance of that contract, cannot be transferred to the candidate or the tenderer, so that the latter may rely on those capacities only if that third party entity directly and personally participates in the performance of that contract.

| 2. | Article 48(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the subject matter of a particular contract and its objectives, the contracting authority may, in specific circumstances, for the purpose of the proper performance of that contract, expressly set out in the tender notice or the tender specifications the specific rules in accordance with which an economic operator may rely on the capacities of other entities, provided that those rules are related and proportionate to the subject matter and objectives of that contract. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 48(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the subject matter of a particular contract and its objectives, the contracting authority may, in specific circumstances, for the purpose of the proper performance of that contract, expressly set out in the tender notice or the tender specifications the specific rules in accordance with which an economic operator may rely on the capacities of other entities, provided that those rules are related and proportionate to the subject matter and objectives of that contract.

| 3. | The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination of economic operators, set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, they preclude a contracting authority, after the opening of the tenders submitted in a public procurement procedure, from acceding to the request of an economic operator which has submitted a tender for the whole of the contract concerned, to take its offer into consideration for the purpose of awarding only certain lots of that contract. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination of economic operators, set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, they preclude a contracting authority, after the opening of the tenders submitted in a public procurement procedure, from acceding to the request of an economic operator which has submitted a tender for the whole of the contract concerned, to take its offer into consideration for the purpose of awarding only certain lots of that contract.

| 4. | The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination of economic operators laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that they require the annulment and repetition of an electronic auction in which an economic operator having submitted an admissible tender has not been invited to take part, even if it cannot be established that the participation of that operator would have altered the outcome of the auction. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination of economic operators laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that they require the annulment and repetition of an electronic auction in which an economic operator having submitted an admissible tender has not been invited to take part, even if it cannot be established that the participation of that operator would have altered the outcome of the auction.

| 5. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the provisions of Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18 cannot be interpreted in the light of those of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the provisions of Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18 cannot be interpreted in the light of those of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v FINWAY a.s.

(Case C-377/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - National rules governing insolvency proceedings - Debts arising from a consumer credit agreement - Effective judicial remedy - Point 1(e) of the annex - Disproportionate amount of compensation - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 3(l) - Total amount of credit - Point I of Annex I - Amount of drawdown - Calculation of the annual percentage rate - Article 10(2) - Obligation to provide information - Ex officio examination - Penalty))

(2016/C 211/10)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová

Defendant: FINWAY a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in insolvency proceedings does not permit, firstly, the court hearing the action to examine of its own motion any unfairness of contractual terms on which the claims declared in those proceedings are based, even when that court has available to it the matters of law and fact necessary to that end, and which, secondly, permits that court to examine only unsecured claims, solely in respect of a restricted number of complaints related to whether they are time-barred or have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in insolvency proceedings does not permit, firstly, the court hearing the action to examine of its own motion any unfairness of contractual terms on which the claims declared in those proceedings are based, even when that court has available to it the matters of law and fact necessary to that end, and which, secondly, permits that court to examine only unsecured claims, solely in respect of a restricted number of complaints related to whether they are time-barred or have been paid.

| 2. | Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it requires a national court hearing a dispute concerning claims based on a credit agreement within the meaning of that directive to examine of its own motion whether the obligation to provide information laid down in that provision has been complied with and to establish the consequences under national law of an infringement of that obligation, provided that the penalties satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it requires a national court hearing a dispute concerning claims based on a credit agreement within the meaning of that directive to examine of its own motion whether the obligation to provide information laid down in that provision has been complied with and to establish the consequences under national law of an infringement of that obligation, provided that the penalties satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of that directive.

| 3. | Articles 3(1) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 and point I of Annex I to that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the total amount of the credit and the amount of the drawdown together designate the sums made available to the consumer, which excludes those used by the lender to pay the costs connected with the credit concerned and which are not actually paid to that consumer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 3(1) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 and point I of Annex I to that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the total amount of the credit and the amount of the drawdown together designate the sums made available to the consumer, which excludes those used by the lender to pay the costs connected with the credit concerned and which are not actually paid to that consumer.

| 4. | The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the amount of compensation required to be paid by a consumer who does not fulfil his obligations is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, it is necessary to evaluate the cumulative effect of all the penalty clauses in the contract in question, regardless of whether the creditor actually insists that they all be satisfied in full and that, if necessary, the national courts must, by virtue of Article 6(1) of that directive, establish all the consequences of the finding that certain terms are unfair, exclude all terms found to be unfair in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by them. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the amount of compensation required to be paid by a consumer who does not fulfil his obligations is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, it is necessary to evaluate the cumulative effect of all the penalty clauses in the contract in question, regardless of whether the creditor actually insists that they all be satisfied in full and that, if necessary, the national courts must, by virtue of Article 6(1) of that directive, establish all the consequences of the finding that certain terms are unfair, exclude all terms found to be unfair in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by them.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank SA (C-381/14), and Youssouf Drame Ba v Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)

(Joined Cases C-381/14 and C-385/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Examination of the clause with a view to its invalidation - Collective proceedings - Action for an injunction - Stay of an individual action with the same subject matter))

(2016/C 211/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jorge Sales Sinués (C-381/14), Youssouf Drame Ba (C-385/14)

Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-381/14), Catalunya Caixa SA (Catalunya Banc SA) (C-385/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a court, before which an individual action has been brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a contractual term binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair, automatically to suspend such an action pending a final judgment concerning an ongoing collective action brought by a consumer association on the basis of Article 7(2) of Directive 93/13 seeking to prevent the continued use, in contracts of the same type, of terms similar to those at issue in that individual action, without the relevance of such a suspension from the point of view of the protection of the consumer who brought the individual action before the court being able to be taken into consideration and without that consumer being able to decide to dissociate himself from the collective action.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-397/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 28 - Non-geographic numbers - Access by end-users residing in the Member State for operators to services using non-geographic numbers - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 5, 8 and 13 - Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection - Imposition, amendment or withdrawal of obligations - Imposition of obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users - Price control - Undertaking not having significant market power on the market - Directive 2002/21/EC - Resolution of disputes between undertakings - Decision of the national regulatory authority laying down the conditions of cooperation and the pricing procedures for services between undertakings))

(2016/C 211/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Intervening parties: Orange Polska S.A., formerly Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may provide that an operator of a public electronic communications network must ensure that all end-users are able to access non-geographic numbers on its network in that State and not only those of other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may provide that an operator of a public electronic communications network must ensure that all end-users are able to access non-geographic numbers on its network in that State and not only those of other Member States.

| 2. | Articles 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, must be interpreted as allowing a national regulatory authority, in resolving a dispute between two operators, to impose on one of them the obligation to ensure that end-users are able to access services using non-geographic numbers provided on the other’s network and to set, on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, pricing procedures for that access between those operators such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided that those obligations are objective, transparent, proportionate, non-discriminatory, based on the nature of the problem identified and justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and the procedures provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive have, where applicable, been observed, which it is for the national court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, must be interpreted as allowing a national regulatory authority, in resolving a dispute between two operators, to impose on one of them the obligation to ensure that end-users are able to access services using non-geographic numbers provided on the other’s network and to set, on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, pricing procedures for that access between those operators such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided that those obligations are objective, transparent, proportionate, non-discriminatory, based on the nature of the problem identified and justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and the procedures provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive have, where applicable, been observed, which it is for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen

(Case C-441/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation incompatible with the directive - Possibility for a private person to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the State for breach of EU law - Dispute between private persons - Balancing of various rights and principles - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - Role of the national court))

(2016/C 211/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S

Defendant: Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, as given concrete expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding, including in disputes between private persons, national legislation, such as that at issue in the proceedings before the referring court, which deprives an employee of entitlement to a severance allowance where the employee is entitled to claim an old-age pension from the employer under a pension scheme which the employee joined before reaching the age of 50, regardless of whether the employee chooses to remain on the employment market or take his retirement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, as given concrete expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding, including in disputes between private persons, national legislation, such as that at issue in the proceedings before the referring court, which deprives an employee of entitlement to a severance allowance where the employee is entitled to claim an old-age pension from the employer under a pension scheme which the employee joined before reaching the age of 50, regardless of whether the employee chooses to remain on the employment market or take his retirement.

| 2. | EU law is to be interpreted as meaning that a national court adjudicating in a dispute between private persons falling within the scope of Directive 2000/78 is required, when applying provisions of national law, to interpret those provisions in such a way that they may be applied in a manner that is consistent with the directive or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply, where necessary, any provision of national law that is contrary to the general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. Neither the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations nor the fact that it is possible for the private person who considers that he has been wronged by the application of a provision of national law that is at odds with EU law to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the Member State concerned for breach of EU law can alter that obligation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law is to be interpreted as meaning that a national court adjudicating in a dispute between private persons falling within the scope of Directive 2000/78 is required, when applying provisions of national law, to interpret those provisions in such a way that they may be applied in a manner that is consistent with the directive or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply, where necessary, any provision of national law that is contrary to the general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age. Neither the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations nor the fact that it is possible for the private person who considers that he has been wronged by the application of a provision of national law that is at odds with EU law to bring proceedings to establish the liability of the Member State concerned for breach of EU law can alter that obligation.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

(Case C-460/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract))

(2016/C 211/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johannes Evert Antonius Massar

Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision includes a procedure at the end of which a public body authorises an employer to dismiss an employee who is covered by legal expenses insurance.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

(Case C-483/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention - Applicable law - Cross-border merger - Directive 78/855/EEC - Directive 2005/56/EC - Merger by acquisition - Protection of creditors - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company))

(2016/C 211/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KA Finanz AG

Defendant: Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger;

| — | the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company. |
| --- | --- |

—

the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company.

| 2. | Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten

(Case C-522/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax - Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information))

(2016/C 211/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sparkasse Allgäu

Defendant: Finanzamt Kempten

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires credit institutions having their head office in that Member State to notify the national authorities of assets held or managed at their dependent branches established in another Member State in the event of the death of the owner of those assets who is resident in the first Member State, in the case where there is no similar notification obligation in that second Member State and credit institutions there are subject to banking secrecy breach of which constitutes a criminal offence.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — proceedings by Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation

(Case C-546/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Directive 2006/112/EC - Insolvency - Procedure for an arrangement with creditors - Partial payment of VAT debts))

(2016/C 211/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Udine

Party to the main proceedings

Degano Trasporti Sas di Ferruccio Degano & C., in liquidation

Intervening party: Pubblico Ministero presso il Tribunale di Udine

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, interpreted as meaning that an insolvent trader may apply to a court to open a procedure for an arrangement with creditors for the purpose of settling its debts by liquidating its assets, in which that trader offers only partial payment of a value added tax debt and establishes by an independent expert’s report that that debt would not be repaid more fully in the event of that trader’s bankruptcy.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission

(Case C-556/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Articles 19 and 20 - Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 - Article 10 - System of registries for transactions concerning emission allowances - Liability for fault - Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving stolen emission allowances - Strict liability))

(2016/C 211/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Holcim (Romania) SA (represented by: L. Arnauts, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Mifsud Bonnici, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Mimoun Khachab v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-558/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 7(1)(c) - Family reunification - Requirements for the exercise of the right to family reunification - Stable and regular resources which are sufficient - National legislation permitting a prospective assessment of the likelihood that the sponsor will retain his resources - Compatibility))

(2016/C 211/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mimoun Khachab

Respondent: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as allowing the competent authorities of a Member State to refuse an application for family reunification on the basis of a prospective assessment of the likelihood of the sponsor retaining, or failing to retain, the necessary stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, without recourse to the social assistance system of that Member State, in the year following the date of submission of that application, that assessment being based on the pattern of the sponsor’s income in the six months preceding that date.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet

(Case C-561/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Family reunification - National legislation laying down new, more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members, who are not economically active, of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in the Member State in question - Condition requiring ties sufficient to enable successful integration))

(2016/C 211/20)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caner Genc

Defendant: Integrationsministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

A national measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making family reunification between a Turkish worker residing lawfully in the Member State concerned and his minor child subject to the condition that the latter have, or have the possibility of establishing, sufficient ties with Denmark to enable him successfully to integrate, when the child concerned and his other parent reside in the State of origin or in another State, and the application for family reunification is made more than two years from the date on which the parent residing in the Member State concerned obtained a permanent residence permit or a residence permit with a possibility of permanent residence constitutes a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963.

Such a restriction is not justified.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

(Case C-572/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Article 5(3) - Concept of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 5(2)(b) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Reproduction for private use - Fair compensation - Non-payment - Whether included in the scope of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001))

(2016/C 211/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH

Defendants: Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a claim seeking to obtain payment of remuneration due by virtue of a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, implementing the ‘fair compensation’ system provided for in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, falls within ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) —  AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

(Case C-5/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Objection to refusal of authorisation for care))

(2016/C 211/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AK (*1)

Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision covers the stage of an objection before a public body during which that body gives a decision against which an action may be brought before the courts.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-100/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Insufficient and incomplete examination - Obligation to state reasons - Selectivity))

(2016/C 211/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-193/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia - Distortion of the sense of the evidence))

(2016/C 211/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Tarif Akhras to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Tarif Akhras to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Criterion relating to the provision of material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Financial services of a central bank))

(2016/C 211/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Central Bank of Iran (represented by: M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Brussels — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC)

(Case C-284/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU and Article 48 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(2) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 67(3) - Social security - Unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment - Award of that benefit - Completion of periods of employment - Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment - Taking into account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State))

(2016/C 211/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Brussels

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M

Defendants: M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment, where that employment was not preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment, where that employment was not preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that Member State.

| 2. | Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Grounds for refusal to execute - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State))

(2016/C 211/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence with respect to detention conditions in the issuing Member State that demonstrates that there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention, the executing judicial authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned by a European arrest warrant, issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence, will be exposed, because of the conditions for his detention in the issuing Member State, to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, in the event of his surrender to that Member State. To that end, the executing judicial authority must request that supplementary information be provided by the issuing judicial authority, which, after seeking, if necessary, the assistance of the central authority or one of the central authorities of the issuing Member State, under Article 7 of the Framework Decision, must send that information within the time limit specified in the request. The executing judicial authority must postpone its decision on the surrender of the individual concerned until it obtains the supplementary information that allows it to discount the existence of such a risk. If the existence of that risk cannot be discounted within a reasonable time, the executing judicial authority must decide whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/22

---

Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2015 in Case T-525/14: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-84/16 P)

(2016/C 211/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S. O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes, J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement of the General Court of 8. December, 2015, in Case T-525/14 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement of the General Court of 8. December, 2015, in Case T-525/14 in its entirety;

| — | remit the case back to the General Court in order to re-examine the inherent degree of distinctiveness of the signs in dispute, including of the elements of which these signs are composed of, as well as the degree of similarity between these signs, and to, |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case back to the General Court in order to re-examine the inherent degree of distinctiveness of the signs in dispute, including of the elements of which these signs are composed of, as well as the degree of similarity between these signs, and to,

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs including the costs incurred by the Appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs including the costs incurred by the Appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on an infringement of Union law by the General Court in so far as the General Court in its judgment of 8. December 2015 infringed Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark.

In summary, the General Court erred in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the contested CTM application ‘Image 1’, including of the elements ‘Image 2’ and ‘Image 3’ of which this sign is composed, and of the earlier trade mark ‘Image 4’. In addition, this incorrect assessment of the General Court was also based on a distortion of the facts regarding the language knowledge of the relevant public and their understanding of the meaning of the elements of the signs in dispute as well as of the evidence submitted by the defendant as Annex C.1 and Annex C.4, currently submitted as Annex 6.

Furthermore, the General Court failed to provide reasons as to why certain aspects of the signs in dispute, e.g. their figurative elements, were not considered in in the assessment of the similarity of signs.

On the basis of these incorrect assessments, the General Court erroneously held that in view of the strong similarity or identity of the goods covered, the average degree of similarity between the mark applied for and the earlier French trade mark and the normal inherent distinctiveness of that earlier trade mark there is a likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR.

---

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

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.

(Case C-106/16)

(2016/C 211/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union preclude the application by a Member State, in which a commercial company (public limited company) was initially incorporated, of provisions of national law which make removal from the commercial register conditional on the company being wound up after liquidation has been carried out, if the company has been reincorporated in another Member State pursuant to a shareholders’ decision to continue the legal personality acquired in the State of initial incorporation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union preclude the application by a Member State, in which a commercial company (public limited company) was initially incorporated, of provisions of national law which make removal from the commercial register conditional on the company being wound up after liquidation has been carried out, if the company has been reincorporated in another Member State pursuant to a shareholders’ decision to continue the legal personality acquired in the State of initial incorporation?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the negative: Can Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the requirement under national law that proceedings for the liquidation of the company be carried out — including the conclusion of current business, recovery of debts, fulfilment of obligations and sale of company assets, satisfaction or securing of creditors, submission of a financial statement on the conduct of those acts, and indication of the person to whom the books and documents are to be entrusted — which precede the winding-up thereof, which occurs on removal from the commercial register, is a measure which is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to a public interest deserving of protection in the form of safeguarding of creditors, minority shareholders, and employees of the migrant company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the negative: Can Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the requirement under national law that proceedings for the liquidation of the company be carried out — including the conclusion of current business, recovery of debts, fulfilment of obligations and sale of company assets, satisfaction or securing of creditors, submission of a financial statement on the conduct of those acts, and indication of the person to whom the books and documents are to be entrusted — which precede the winding-up thereof, which occurs on removal from the commercial register, is a measure which is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to a public interest deserving of protection in the form of safeguarding of creditors, minority shareholders, and employees of the migrant company?

| 3. | Must Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that restrictions on the freedom of establishment include a situation in which — for the purpose of conversion to a company of another Member State — a company transfers its registered office to that other Member State without changing its place of principal establishment, which remains in the State of initial incorporation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that restrictions on the freedom of establishment include a situation in which — for the purpose of conversion to a company of another Member State — a company transfers its registered office to that other Member State without changing its place of principal establishment, which remains in the State of initial incorporation?

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-113/16)

(2016/C 211/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Günter Horváth

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Questions referred

| 1. | Does legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings create a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings create a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?

| 2. | Having regard to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are nationals of the Member State concerned affected to the same extent as nationals of the other Member States by legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Having regard to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are nationals of the Member State concerned affected to the same extent as nationals of the other Member States by legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-114/16)

(2016/C 211/31)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft.

Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Question referred

Are the provisions of Articles 167, 168, 178 and 179 of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted to the effect that the revenue authority is required to recognise, in the course of a tax audit, a taxable person’s right of deduction in circumstances in which, although there is no indication in the taxable person’s VAT return of the tax paid, the taxable person possesses invoices consistent with that directive and, during the audit, requests recognition of its right of deduction?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

(Case C-129/16)

(2016/C 211/32)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft.

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directive 2004/35/EC (1) on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage preclude a provision of national law which — going beyond the ‘polluter pays’ principle — permits the environmental protection agency to hold specifically the owner of the property liable to pay compensation for the environmental damage caused, without it first being necessary to determine whether there is a causal link between the conduct of that person (a commercial undertaking) and the pollution caused? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directive 2004/35/EC (1) on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage preclude a provision of national law which — going beyond the ‘polluter pays’ principle — permits the environmental protection agency to hold specifically the owner of the property liable to pay compensation for the environmental damage caused, without it first being necessary to determine whether there is a causal link between the conduct of that person (a commercial undertaking) and the pollution caused?

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the negative and, with regard to the air pollution it is not necessary to remedy the environmental damage, may a fine aimed at protecting air quality be imposed on the basis of legislation of the Member State which is more stringent than Article 16 of Directive 2004/35/EC and Article 193 TFEU, or can that more stringent legislation not, at any rate, result in the imposition of a fine which is solely punitive in nature on the owner of the property, which is not responsible for the pollution caused? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative and, with regard to the air pollution it is not necessary to remedy the environmental damage, may a fine aimed at protecting air quality be imposed on the basis of legislation of the Member State which is more stringent than Article 16 of Directive 2004/35/EC and Article 193 TFEU, or can that more stringent legislation not, at any rate, result in the imposition of a fine which is solely punitive in nature on the owner of the property, which is not responsible for the pollution caused?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.

(Case C-131/16)

(2016/C 211/33)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik

Defendant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1) be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority can be required to invite economic operators which have not submitted within the prescribed period (that is to say, the period specified for submitting tenders) ‘declarations or documents’ requested by the contractor proving that the tendered supplies, services or works satisfy the requirements laid down by the contracting authority (that term also covering samples of the subject-matter of the contract), or which submitted ‘declarations or documents’ requested by the contracting authority containing errors, to submit ‘declarations or documents’ (samples) which are missing or which correct errors within a specified additional period, without laying down a prohibition under which supplemented ‘declarations or documents’ (samples) cannot alter the content of the tender? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1) be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority can be required to invite economic operators which have not submitted within the prescribed period (that is to say, the period specified for submitting tenders) ‘declarations or documents’ requested by the contractor proving that the tendered supplies, services or works satisfy the requirements laid down by the contracting authority (that term also covering samples of the subject-matter of the contract), or which submitted ‘declarations or documents’ requested by the contracting authority containing errors, to submit ‘declarations or documents’ (samples) which are missing or which correct errors within a specified additional period, without laying down a prohibition under which supplemented ‘declarations or documents’ (samples) cannot alter the content of the tender?

| 2. | Can Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority can retain the deposit lodged by the economic operator if that operator, in response to the contracting authority’s invitation to supplement the tender, did not submit ‘documents or declarations’ (samples) proving that the tendered supplies, services or works satisfy the requirements laid down by the contracting authority, where that supplementation would result in a change to the content of the tender, or did not consent to the contracting authority’s correction of the tender, which made it impossible to select the tender submitted by the economic operator as being the most advantageous? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority can retain the deposit lodged by the economic operator if that operator, in response to the contracting authority’s invitation to supplement the tender, did not submit ‘documents or declarations’ (samples) proving that the tendered supplies, services or works satisfy the requirements laid down by the contracting authority, where that supplementation would result in a change to the content of the tender, or did not consent to the contracting authority’s correction of the tender, which made it impossible to select the tender submitted by the economic operator as being the most advantageous?

| 3. | Must Article 1(3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, be interpreted as meaning that ‘a particular contract’, as referred to in the passage concerning the ‘interest in obtaining a particular contract’, means ‘a particular procedure for the award of a public contract carried out’ (in this case: that published in the notice of 3 June 2015), or ‘the particular subject-matter of the contract’ (in this case: the service relating to the digitisation of the contracting authority’s archive documents), irrespective of whether, as a consequence of an appeal being granted, the contracting authority will be required to annul the procedure for the award of a public contract and may possibly be required to initiate a subsequent procedure for the award of a public contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 1(3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, be interpreted as meaning that ‘a particular contract’, as referred to in the passage concerning the ‘interest in obtaining a particular contract’, means ‘a particular procedure for the award of a public contract carried out’ (in this case: that published in the notice of 3 June 2015), or ‘the particular subject-matter of the contract’ (in this case: the service relating to the digitisation of the contracting authority’s archive documents), irrespective of whether, as a consequence of an appeal being granted, the contracting authority will be required to annul the procedure for the award of a public contract and may possibly be required to initiate a subsequent procedure for the award of a public contract?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-135/16)

(2016/C 211/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Does the European Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 (Commission Decision of 25.11.2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users, C(2014)8786 final) (1) breach the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as the Commission qualifies the limitation of the EEG-surcharge as aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

(Case C-144/16)

(2016/C 211/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Palmela

Defendants: ASAE — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

Questions referred

| (a) | Considering that Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December adopted the Regulation setting out mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Considering that Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December adopted the Regulation setting out mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces;

| (b) | Considering that Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May amended Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December, amending the wording of certain technical standards and adding other technical standards, and republished that Regulation of which it forms part; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Considering that Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May amended Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December, amending the wording of certain technical standards and adding other technical standards, and republished that Regulation of which it forms part;

| (c) | Considering that neither of the two above-mentioned national legislative texts were notified to the European Commission in the context of a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations set out in Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 and transposed into national law by Decree-Law No 58/2000 of 18 April:






  1. | Must the national court declare that a national legislative text is entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the court’s declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? Or, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

Considering that neither of the two above-mentioned national legislative texts were notified to the European Commission in the context of a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations set out in Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 and transposed into national law by Decree-Law No 58/2000 of 18 April:

1.

Must the national court declare that a national legislative text is entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the court’s declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? Or,

| 2. | Must a national legislative text be declared entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must a national legislative text be declared entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text?

| 3. | Are all the technical standards set out in the said Regulation inapplicable, or only those technical standards amended or introduced by Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are all the technical standards set out in the said Regulation inapplicable, or only those technical standards amended or introduced by Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May?

---

(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998, L 204, p. 37).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

(Case C-147/16)

(2016/C 211/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW

Defendant: Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a national court, when a claim is lodged with it against a consumer in relation to the performance of a contract and that court, under national procedural rules, has the power only to examine of its own motion whether the claim is contrary to mandatory national rules, have the power to examine in the same manner, of its own motion, even in the event of the consumer’s non-appearance at the hearing, and to determine whether the contract in question comes within the scope of [Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993] on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as implemented in Belgian law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national court, when a claim is lodged with it against a consumer in relation to the performance of a contract and that court, under national procedural rules, has the power only to examine of its own motion whether the claim is contrary to mandatory national rules, have the power to examine in the same manner, of its own motion, even in the event of the consumer’s non-appearance at the hearing, and to determine whether the contract in question comes within the scope of [Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993] on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as implemented in Belgian law?

| 2. | Is a free educational establishment which provides subsidised tuition to a consumer to be regarded, in respect of the contract for the provision of that tuition in return for payment of a registration fee, increased, as it may be, by amounts for the reimbursement of costs incurred by the educational establishment, as an undertaking within the meaning of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a free educational establishment which provides subsidised tuition to a consumer to be regarded, in respect of the contract for the provision of that tuition in return for payment of a registration fee, increased, as it may be, by amounts for the reimbursement of costs incurred by the educational establishment, as an undertaking within the meaning of EU law?

| 3. | Does a contract between a consumer and a free subsidised educational establishment relating to the provision of subsidised tuition by that establishment come within the scope of Directive 93/13/EEC ... and is a free educational establishment which provides subsidised tuition to a consumer to be regarded, in respect of the contract for the provision of that tuition, as a seller or supplier within the meaning of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does a contract between a consumer and a free subsidised educational establishment relating to the provision of subsidised tuition by that establishment come within the scope of Directive 93/13/EEC ... and is a free educational establishment which provides subsidised tuition to a consumer to be regarded, in respect of the contract for the provision of that tuition, as a seller or supplier within the meaning of that directive?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2016 — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut

(Case C-156/16)

(2016/C 211/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tigers GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Landshut

Questions referred

| I. | Does Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China allow a valid commercial invoice presented for the purposes of the initial fixing of a definitive anti-dumping duty to be submitted retrospectively where all the other conditions necessary for obtaining an individual anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Does Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China allow a valid commercial invoice presented for the purposes of the initial fixing of a definitive anti-dumping duty to be submitted retrospectively where all the other conditions necessary for obtaining an individual anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied?

| II. | In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:
  Does Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, preclude the customs authority, in the course of a revision procedure, from refusing to refund an anti-dumping duty on the ground that the declarant did not present a valid commercial invoice until after the customs declaration had been made? |
| --- | --- |

II.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:

Does Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, preclude the customs authority, in the course of a revision procedure, from refusing to refund an anti-dumping duty on the ground that the declarant did not present a valid commercial invoice until after the customs declaration had been made?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias

(Case C-158/16)

(2016/C 211/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarita Isabel Vega González

Defendant: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘employment conditions’ in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 ... be interpreted as including a legal situation in which a fixed-term worker who has been elected to political office as a member of Parliament may, in the same way as a permanent member of staff, apply for and be granted a break in the service relationship with the employer so as to be reinstated in the same post once the relevant parliamentary term of office has expired? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘employment conditions’ in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 ... be interpreted as including a legal situation in which a fixed-term worker who has been elected to political office as a member of Parliament may, in the same way as a permanent member of staff, apply for and be granted a break in the service relationship with the employer so as to be reinstated in the same post once the relevant parliamentary term of office has expired?

| 2. | Must the principle of non-discrimination referred to in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 ... be interpreted as precluding regional legislation such as Article 59(2) of the Law [of the Principality of Asturias] 3/1985 [of 26 December 1985] on the organisation of the civil service [of the Government of the Principality of Asturias], which totally and absolutely precludes giving an ‘interino’ civil servant special service leave in the event of being elected a member of Parliament, when that right is given to career civil servants? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the principle of non-discrimination referred to in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 ... be interpreted as precluding regional legislation such as Article 59(2) of the Law [of the Principality of Asturias] 3/1985 [of 26 December 1985] on the organisation of the civil service [of the Government of the Principality of Asturias], which totally and absolutely precludes giving an ‘interino’ civil servant special service leave in the event of being elected a member of Parliament, when that right is given to career civil servants?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV

(Case C-163/16)

(2016/C 211/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS

Defendant: Van Haren Schoenen BV

Question referred

Is the notion of ‘shape’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) (‘Form’, ‘vorm’ and ‘forme’ in the German, Dutch and French language versions of the Trade Marks Directive respectively) limited to the three-dimensional properties of the goods, such as their contours, measurements and volume (expressed three-dimensionally), or does it include other (non three-dimensional) properties of the goods, such as their colour?

---

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

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-172/16)

(2016/C 211/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Question referred

Is the Agreement on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) is also applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) thereof, to passengers who intend to land in an airport in Switzerland on a flight from a third country?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 29 March 2016 — M.H. v M.H.

(Case C-173/16)

(2016/C 211/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.H.

Defendant: M.H.

Question referred

Is ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings ... is lodged with the court’ in Article 16.1(a) of Regulation 2201/2003 (1) to be interpreted as meaning:-

| i) | the time at which the document instituting the proceedings is received by the court even if such receipt does not of itself immediately commence the proceedings in accordance with national law; or |
| --- | --- |

i)

the time at which the document instituting the proceedings is received by the court even if such receipt does not of itself immediately commence the proceedings in accordance with national law; or

| ii) | the time at which, following receipt of the document instituting the proceedings by the court, the proceedings are commenced in accordance with national law. |
| --- | --- |

ii)

the time at which, following receipt of the document instituting the proceedings by the court, the proceedings are commenced in accordance with national law.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 OJ L 338, p. 1

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/32

---

Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case C-183/16 P)

(2016/C 211/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Tilly-Sabco (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13, except as regards the admissibility of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13, except as regards the admissibility of the action;

| — | decide, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to give final judgment in the matter itself and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (1) at zero; |
| --- | --- |

—

decide, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to give final judgment in the matter itself and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (1) at zero;

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

—

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.

The first ground alleges misinterpretation by the Court of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. (2) The appellant claims that the Commission did not permit the management committee to consider, within the prescribed period, all the information, including the refund rate, necessary in order to give its opinion on the draft regulation.

The second ground alleges misinterpretation of Article 164(2) of 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). (3) The appellant submits, inter alia, that the Court wrongly categorised Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 as a ‘periodic agricultural instrument’.

The third ground alleges that there is no justification, or no adequate statement of reasons, for Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 and, in particular, focuses on its being categorised as a ‘standard regulation’ and the reasons for setting the refunds at ‘zero’. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the method of determining the refund rate is not subject to judicial review and that the statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal as regards the gradual lowering of the refund rates is self-contradictory.

The fourth ground alleges a breach of law or a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Court failed to interpret correctly the criteria in Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007. The appellant submits that, with regard to certain criteria, the Court endorsed the Commission’s taking, at its own discretion and without giving reasons, into account the 2009-2013 reference period, that is to say, a very long period from long ago, instead of the year 2013 as required by the relevant provisions and, in particular, Article 164(3)(a) of Regulation No 1234/2007. According to this plea, the Court also committed a manifest error of assessment in considering, inter alia, that the price difference with regard to Brazilian poultry did not necessitate the introduction of export refunds to ensure equilibrium in the EU poultry meat market and the natural development of prices and trade on that market. Lastly, the Court acknowledged that the Commission had erred in submitting before it arguments different from those submitted before the management committee.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13.

(3)  OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 1 April 2016 — Ovidiu-Mihaita Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis (Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction)

(Case C-184/16)

(2016/C 211/43)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ovidiu-Mihaita Petrea

Defendant: Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 27 and 32 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted, in the light of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, and having regard to the procedural autonomy of the Member States and the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and good administration, as meaning that the withdrawal of a certificate of registration as a European Union citizen, previously granted, under Article 8(1) of [Greek] Decree 106/2007, to a national of another Member State, and the imposition on him of a measure for his removal from the host Member State, is required or permitted in circumstances where, although he had been registered in the national list of undesirable aliens and was the subject of an exclusion order on grounds of public policy and public security, that person again entered the Member State concerned and conducted a business, while failing to observe the procedure laid down in Article 32 of Directive 2004/38 for the submission of an application for the lifting of that exclusion order, when the latter (the exclusion order) was imposed on the self-sufficient ground of public policy which justifies the withdrawal of the certificate of registration of a citizen of a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 27 and 32 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted, in the light of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, and having regard to the procedural autonomy of the Member States and the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and good administration, as meaning that the withdrawal of a certificate of registration as a European Union citizen, previously granted, under Article 8(1) of [Greek] Decree 106/2007, to a national of another Member State, and the imposition on him of a measure for his removal from the host Member State, is required or permitted in circumstances where, although he had been registered in the national list of undesirable aliens and was the subject of an exclusion order on grounds of public policy and public security, that person again entered the Member State concerned and conducted a business, while failing to observe the procedure laid down in Article 32 of Directive 2004/38 for the submission of an application for the lifting of that exclusion order, when the latter (the exclusion order) was imposed on the self-sufficient ground of public policy which justifies the withdrawal of the certificate of registration of a citizen of a Member State?

| 2. | In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, are such circumstances to be treated in the same way as circumstances where a European Union citizen is staying illegally in the territory of the host Member State, so that it is permissible, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC, (2) for the body which is competent to withdraw the certificate of registration as a Union citizen to issue a return order, given that (i) the registration certificate does not constitute, as is well established, evidence of a right of legal residence in Greece, and (ii) only third county nationals fall within the scope ratione personae of Directive 2008/115/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, are such circumstances to be treated in the same way as circumstances where a European Union citizen is staying illegally in the territory of the host Member State, so that it is permissible, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC, (2) for the body which is competent to withdraw the certificate of registration as a Union citizen to issue a return order, given that (i) the registration certificate does not constitute, as is well established, evidence of a right of legal residence in Greece, and (ii) only third county nationals fall within the scope ratione personae of Directive 2008/115/EC?

| 3. | In the event of a negative answer to the first question, if the competent national authorities, acting within the framework of the procedural autonomy of the host Member State, were to withdraw, on grounds of public policy and public security, the registration certificate of a citizen of another Member State, which does not constitute evidence of a right of legal residence in Greece, and simultaneously impose, on that citizen, an order to return, could that be considered to involve, according to the correct legal classification, one and the same administrative act concerning administrative expulsion under Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2004/38 subject to judicial review under the conditions laid down in those provisions, which lay down what is possibly the sole means of administrative removal of EU citizens from the territory of the host Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event of a negative answer to the first question, if the competent national authorities, acting within the framework of the procedural autonomy of the host Member State, were to withdraw, on grounds of public policy and public security, the registration certificate of a citizen of another Member State, which does not constitute evidence of a right of legal residence in Greece, and simultaneously impose, on that citizen, an order to return, could that be considered to involve, according to the correct legal classification, one and the same administrative act concerning administrative expulsion under Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2004/38 subject to judicial review under the conditions laid down in those provisions, which lay down what is possibly the sole means of administrative removal of EU citizens from the territory of the host Member State?

| 4. | In the event that the answer to the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling is either affirmative or negative, is national legal practice compatible with the principle of effectiveness if that practice prohibits administrative authorities and thereafter courts with jurisdiction, which are seised of a case, from undertaking an examination, in the context of the withdrawal of a certificate of registration of a Union citizen or the imposition of a measure for the removal from the host Member State on the grounds of the continuing validity of an order excluding the national of another Member State from the Member State concerned, of the extent to which the procedural safeguards of the provisions in Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/38 were observed in the issue of the exclusion order concerned? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that the answer to the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling is either affirmative or negative, is national legal practice compatible with the principle of effectiveness if that practice prohibits administrative authorities and thereafter courts with jurisdiction, which are seised of a case, from undertaking an examination, in the context of the withdrawal of a certificate of registration of a Union citizen or the imposition of a measure for the removal from the host Member State on the grounds of the continuing validity of an order excluding the national of another Member State from the Member State concerned, of the extent to which the procedural safeguards of the provisions in Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/38 were observed in the issue of the exclusion order concerned?

| 5. | In the event of an affirmative answer to the fourth question, does it follow from Article 32 of Directive 2004/38 that the competent administrative authorities of the Member State are obliged to notify, in all cases, the national of another Member State concerned of the decision ordering his removal in a language which he understands, so that he is in a position properly to exercise the legal rights which he derives from the provisions concerned of the directive, irrespective of whether the relevant application has been submitted by him? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event of an affirmative answer to the fourth question, does it follow from Article 32 of Directive 2004/38 that the competent administrative authorities of the Member State are obliged to notify, in all cases, the national of another Member State concerned of the decision ordering his removal in a language which he understands, so that he is in a position properly to exercise the legal rights which he derives from the provisions concerned of the directive, irrespective of whether the relevant application has been submitted by him?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

(2)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten

(Case C-189/16)

(2016/C 211/44)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck

Defendant: Pensionsmyndigheten

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions in Article 47(1)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) mean that the insurance periods completed in another Member State, in the calculation of the Swedish guaranteed pension, can be given a pensionable value which corresponds to the average value of the Swedish periods where the competent authority undertakes a pro-rata calculation under Article 46(2) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions in Article 47(1)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) mean that the insurance periods completed in another Member State, in the calculation of the Swedish guaranteed pension, can be given a pensionable value which corresponds to the average value of the Swedish periods where the competent authority undertakes a pro-rata calculation under Article 46(2) of that regulation?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, may the competent institution, in its calculation of the entitlement to a guaranteed pension take account of pension income which an insured person receives in another Member State without that running counter to the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, may the competent institution, in its calculation of the entitlement to a guaranteed pension take account of pension income which an insured person receives in another Member State without that running counter to the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB

(Case C-194/16)

(2016/C 211/45)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan

Respondent: Svensk Handel AB

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can bring an action for rectification of the incorrect information and removal of the harmful comments before the courts of any Member State in which the information on the internet is or was accessible, in respect of the harm sustained in that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can bring an action for rectification of the incorrect information and removal of the harmful comments before the courts of any Member State in which the information on the internet is or was accessible, in respect of the harm sustained in that Member State?

| 2. | Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person which alleges that its rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can, in respect of the entire harm that it has sustained, bring proceedings for rectification of the information, for an injunction for removal of the comments and for damages for the pecuniary loss caused by publication of the incorrect information on the internet before the courts of the State in which that legal person has its centre of interests? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person which alleges that its rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can, in respect of the entire harm that it has sustained, bring proceedings for rectification of the information, for an injunction for removal of the comments and for damages for the pecuniary loss caused by publication of the incorrect information on the internet before the courts of the State in which that legal person has its centre of interests?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the affirmative: is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | it is to be assumed that a legal person has its centre of interests in the Member State in which it has its seat, and accordingly that the place where the harmful event occurred is in that Member State, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative: is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that:

—

it is to be assumed that a legal person has its centre of interests in the Member State in which it has its seat, and accordingly that the place where the harmful event occurred is in that Member State, or

| — | in ascertaining a legal person’s centre of interests, and accordingly the place where the harmful event occurred, regard must be had to all of the circumstances, such as its seat and fixed place of business, the location of its customers and the way and means in which its transactions are concluded? |
| --- | --- |

—

in ascertaining a legal person’s centre of interests, and accordingly the place where the harmful event occurred, regard must be had to all of the circumstances, such as its seat and fixed place of business, the location of its customers and the way and means in which its transactions are concluded?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 April 2016 — État belge v Max-Manuel Nianga

(Case C-199/16)

(2016/C 211/46)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Max-Manuel Nianga

Question referred

Is Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and having regard to the right to be heard in any proceedings, which forms an integral part of respect for the rights of the defence, a general principle of EU law, as applied in the context of that directive, (1) to be interpreted as requiring national authorities to take account of the best interests of the child, family life and the state of health of the third-country national concerned when issuing a return decision, referred to in Article 3(4) and Article 6(1) of the directive, or a removal decision, as provided for in Article 3(5) and Article 8 of the directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA and Others

(Case C-200/16)

(2016/C 211/47)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA

Defendants: ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA, Arthur George Resendes, Jorge Alberto Rodrigues Pereira, José Manuel Duque Medeiros, José Octávio Pimentel do Couto Macedo, Márcio Aurélio Mendes, Marco Paulo Viveiros Câmara, Milton César Pimentel Freitas, Milton Miguel Miranda Santos, Nelson Manuel Rego Sousa, Osvaldo Manuel Rego Arruda, Pedro Miguel Amaral Pacheco, Pedro Miguel Costa Tavares, Rui Miguel Costa Tavares, Rui Sérgio Gouveia Terra, Jaime Amorim Amaral Melo, Marcos Daniel Varandas Carvalho, Valter Eurico Rocha da Silva e Sousa

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the situation in the present case amount to a transfer of an undertaking or business, where the defendant, ‘ICTS’, has been transferred to the defendant, ‘SECURITAS’, following a public call for tenders in which the successful bidder, ‘SECURITAS’, was awarded a contract for the provision of security guard services at the Ponta Delgada port in the island of São Miguel, Azores, and does that situation amount to a transfer of an economic entity for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the situation in the present case amount to a transfer of an undertaking or business, where the defendant, ‘ICTS’, has been transferred to the defendant, ‘SECURITAS’, following a public call for tenders in which the successful bidder, ‘SECURITAS’, was awarded a contract for the provision of security guard services at the Ponta Delgada port in the island of São Miguel, Azores, and does that situation amount to a transfer of an economic entity for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001?

| 2. | Is the situation in the present case merely one in which a competing undertaking succeeds another following the award of a service provision contract to the successful undertaking in a public call for tenders, and as such is excluded from the notion of a transfer of an undertaking or business for the purposes of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the situation in the present case merely one in which a competing undertaking succeeds another following the award of a service provision contract to the successful undertaking in a public call for tenders, and as such is excluded from the notion of a transfer of an undertaking or business for the purposes of that directive?

| 3. | Does Clause 13(2) of the Collective Agreement concluded by AES, AESIRF, STAD and other trade union federations contravene Community law on the meaning of a transfer of an undertaking or business arising from Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 in that it stipulates that: ‘the loss of a customer by an operator following an award of a service contract to another operator shall not fall within the notion of a transfer of an undertaking or business’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Clause 13(2) of the Collective Agreement concluded by AES, AESIRF, STAD and other trade union federations contravene Community law on the meaning of a transfer of an undertaking or business arising from Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 in that it stipulates that: ‘the loss of a customer by an operator following an award of a service contract to another operator shall not fall within the notion of a transfer of an undertaking or business’?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/37

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2016 by Mr Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH), formerly Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-203/16 P)

(2016/C 211/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dirk Andres (liquidator in the insolvency of Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH) (represented by: W. Niemann, S. Geringhoff and P. Dodos, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

| — | quash, in part, the judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11, as formulated in the operative part, in so far as it dismissed the action (paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part) and by upholding the claims at first instance, annul Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

quash, in part, the judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11, as formulated in the operative part, in so far as it dismissed the action (paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part) and by upholding the claims at first instance, annul Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (1),

| — | in the alternative, quash, in part, paragraph 1 of the operative part of that judgment of the General Court, in so far as it dismissed the action (paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part) and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, quash, in part, paragraph 1 of the operative part of that judgment of the General Court, in so far as it dismissed the action (paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part) and refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

First of all, the appellant complains of procedural errors. The General Court did not provide reasons for its conclusions concerning the definitions of the reference framework, the selectivity of the measure and its justification, or it merely provided contradictory reasoning, and at the same time, by disregarding the appellant’s arguments, the General Court infringed its right to be heard.

In addition, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 107 TFEU and relies on three grounds:

First, the General Court incorrectly determined the reference framework, when, in combining the first and second stage of the selectivity examination, it erroneously evaluated the rule on the exclusion of the use of losses pursuant to Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG as the relevant basic rule and the maintenance of losses under the ‘restructuring clause’ (Sanierungsklausel) of Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG as the exception. In that regard, the General Court failed to consider that the ‘restructuring clause’ is an integral part of more general and ordinary tax rules on the carrying forward of losses under Paragraph 10d of the German law on income tax (Einkommensteuergesetz, EstG) which are based on German constitutional law.

Second, the General Court wrongly assessed the ‘restructuring clause’ to be selective. The General Court disregarded the fact that that ‘restructuring clause’ does not define any area of personal application, but rather is applicable to all undertakings, irrespective of their type and purpose. The ‘restructuring clause’ is indistinctly applicable to all undertakings which have encountered financial difficulties. In that context, the General Court also disregarded the fact that undertakings in difficulties and healthy ones, with regard to the relevant purpose of the rule on the limitation of losses, that is, to exclude the risk of misuse of losses, are not in a factual and legal comparable situation. In cases covered by the ‘restructuring clause’, such a misuse of losses would be excluded under the legislator’s authority of categorisation.

Third, the General Court was wrong to consider, in any case, the ‘restructuring clause’ to be unjustified. The appellant maintains that that clause is not intended to support undertakings in difficulties, but to ensure taxation of such undertakings according to the principle of ability to pay as an intrinsic objective of German tax law. The maintenance of losses should, in particular, ultimately allow the tax exemption of what are known as ‘fictitious profits’ which arise from the waiver of debt through offsetting losses.

---

(1)  OJ L 235, p. 26.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/38

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-208/16 P)

(2016/C 211/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze und R. Kanitz)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | quash the General Court’s judgment of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as being unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the General Court’s judgment of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as being unfounded;

| — | annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, K(2011)275 final, on State aid C 7/10 — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), according to Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, K(2011)275 final, on State aid C 7/10 — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), according to Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises one ground of appeal in support of its appeal.

There is an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court disregarded that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (KStG), known as ‘the restructuring clause’, is not selective:

| — | the ‘restructuring clause’ is not prima facie selective, as there is no exception to the relevant reference system and because it is a general measure, which may benefit all undertakings in the territory of the Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the ‘restructuring clause’ is not prima facie selective, as there is no exception to the relevant reference system and because it is a general measure, which may benefit all undertakings in the territory of the Member State;

| — | the ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and the internal structure of the tax system. The ‘restructuring clause’ is justified by, first, the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, second, combatting abuse, namely the prevention of abusive arrangements, and, third, the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of shares and an acquisition of shares for the purposes of restructuring. |
| --- | --- |

—

the ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and the internal structure of the tax system. The ‘restructuring clause’ is justified by, first, the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, second, combatting abuse, namely the prevention of abusive arrangements, and, third, the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of shares and an acquisition of shares for the purposes of restructuring.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/39

---

Appeal brought on 22 April 2016 by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) against the order made by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 9 February 2016 in Case T-639/14 Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) v European Commission

(Case C-228/16 P)

(2016/C 211/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) (represented by: Efthymios Bourtzalas, Anargyros Oikonomou, Efstathia Salaka, Charalampos Synodinos, Charisios Tagaras, Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule on the appellant’s claims seeking annulment of the contested measure of 12 June 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule on the appellant’s claims seeking annulment of the contested measure of 12 June 2014;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs, that is to say, the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the order under appeal is vitiated by material errors of law and must be set aside on the following grounds:

| (1) | manifest error of law and a failure to state reasons so far as concerns the finding that Case T-639/14 became devoid of purpose, inasmuch as that finding is based on the supposed ‘replacement’ of the contested measure by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

manifest error of law and a failure to state reasons so far as concerns the finding that Case T-639/14 became devoid of purpose, inasmuch as that finding is based on the supposed ‘replacement’ of the contested measure by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015;

| (2) | infringement of the principles of good administration, legal certainty and effective judicial protection in holding that the measure of 25 March 2015 replaces the contested measure; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

infringement of the principles of good administration, legal certainty and effective judicial protection in holding that the measure of 25 March 2015 replaces the contested measure;

| (3) | manifest error of law so far as concerns interpretation and application of the principle that acts of the institutions of the European Union are lawful; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

manifest error of law so far as concerns interpretation and application of the principle that acts of the institutions of the European Union are lawful;

| (4) | distortion of the facts and infringement of the right to be heard so far as concerns the finding that the contested measure’s reasoning ‘does not refer at all to the issue whether any aid in the form of the arbitral award is of State origin’ and manifest error of assessment so far as concerns the finding that the legal defects in the contested measure which are put forward by DEI ‘will necessarily be assessed in ... Case T-352/15’; |
| --- | --- |

(4)

distortion of the facts and infringement of the right to be heard so far as concerns the finding that the contested measure’s reasoning ‘does not refer at all to the issue whether any aid in the form of the arbitral award is of State origin’ and manifest error of assessment so far as concerns the finding that the legal defects in the contested measure which are put forward by DEI ‘will necessarily be assessed in ... Case T-352/15’;

| (5) | distortion of DEI’s reasoning regarding the criteria on the basis of which it should be decided whether or not there is a need to adjudicate in the present case as regards the complaint of 2012 and manifest error of law so far as concerns the finding that the complaint of 2012 was rejected ‘implicitly’ by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015; and |
| --- | --- |

(5)

distortion of DEI’s reasoning regarding the criteria on the basis of which it should be decided whether or not there is a need to adjudicate in the present case as regards the complaint of 2012 and manifest error of law so far as concerns the finding that the complaint of 2012 was rejected ‘implicitly’ by the Commission’s measure of 25 March 2015; and

| (6) | error of law and manifest error of assessment in holding that each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

error of law and manifest error of assessment in holding that each party is to bear its own costs.

---

General Court

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-221/08) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation file - Action for annulment - Implied and express refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 211/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn and N. Lödler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Eggers, and subsequently by B. Eggers and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action for annulment of all implied and express decisions of the Commission adopted following the initial applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack on 18 and 19 January 2008 and, secondly, an action for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the implied decisions refusing access to the documents, taken in connection with the applications for access made by Mr Guido Strack. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the implied decisions refusing access to the documents, taken in connection with the applications for access made by Mr Guido Strack.

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the express decisions refusing access, in full or in part, to the documents, adopted by the Commission of the European Communities and by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in connection with the confirmatory applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack of 22 February and 21 April 2008, in so far as those documents did not exist or were not available, those documents, or parts of those documents, have been released to the public, or Mr Strack accepts the lawfulness of the decisions refusing access. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the express decisions refusing access, in full or in part, to the documents, adopted by the Commission of the European Communities and by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in connection with the confirmatory applications for access to documents made by Mr Strack of 22 February and 21 April 2008, in so far as those documents did not exist or were not available, those documents, or parts of those documents, have been released to the public, or Mr Strack accepts the lawfulness of the decisions refusing access.

| 3. | Annuls OLAF’s decision of 30 April 2010 in so far as:






  — | access to the documents marked ‘PD’ was refused; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Annuls OLAF’s decision of 30 April 2010 in so far as:

—

access to the documents marked ‘PD’ was refused;

| — | Mr Strack’s name was concealed in the documents marked ‘PA’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Strack’s name was concealed in the documents marked ‘PA’;

| — | documents were omitted in OLAF’s list of 30 April 2010 or were not communicated to Mr Strack solely on the grounds that he created them, he had them in his possession for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and on the free movement of such data, or another provision, without those documents having been disclosed to the public, or they were not included in the application for access, since they related to exchanges between OLAF and the European Ombudsman, or between OLAF and Mr Strack, and they concerned Mr Strack without being part of the investigation file in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

documents were omitted in OLAF’s list of 30 April 2010 or were not communicated to Mr Strack solely on the grounds that he created them, he had them in his possession for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and on the free movement of such data, or another provision, without those documents having been disclosed to the public, or they were not included in the application for access, since they related to exchanges between OLAF and the European Ombudsman, or between OLAF and Mr Strack, and they concerned Mr Strack without being part of the investigation file in question;

| 4. | Annuls OLAF’s decision of 7 July 2010 in so far as:






  — | access to document No 266 was refused on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Annuls OLAF’s decision of 7 July 2010 in so far as:

—

access to document No 266 was refused on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

| — | access to document No 268 was refused, with exception of the information to which Mr Strack could have had access to on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the context of the transmission of other documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

access to document No 268 was refused, with exception of the information to which Mr Strack could have had access to on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the context of the transmission of other documents;

| — | Mr Strack’s name was concealed in the circulation sheets annexed to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Strack’s name was concealed in the circulation sheets annexed to that decision;

| 5. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 6. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of Mr Strack; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of Mr Strack;

| 7. | Orders Mr Strack to bear one quarter of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Orders Mr Strack to bear one quarter of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO

(Case T-556/11) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Software development and maintenance services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Classification of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Grounds for exclusion - Conflict of interest - Equal treatment - Duty of diligence - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Loss of opportunity))

(2016/C 211/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis and N. Theologou, subsequently by I. Ampazis, and lastly by M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, and subsequently by M. Bambara, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the decision of EUIPO notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’ rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to other tenderers, and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’, rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to three other tenderers as successful tenderers ranked first to third in the ‘cascade’ procedure; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), notified by letter of 11 August 2011 and adopted in tendering procedure AO/029/10 entitled ‘Software development and maintenance services’, rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and the other related decisions of EUIPO adopted in the context of that procedure, including those awarding the contract to three other tenderers as successful tenderers ranked first to third in the ‘cascade’ procedure;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to compensate European Dynamics Luxembourg for the damage incurred as a result of the loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as, at the very least, the third contractor in the cascade procedure; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to compensate European Dynamics Luxembourg for the damage incurred as a result of the loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as, at the very least, the third contractor in the cascade procedure;

| 3. | Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount, in figures, of compensation arrived at by agreement; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount, in figures, of compensation arrived at by agreement;

| 4. | Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall forward to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall forward to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

| 5. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission

(Case T-316/13) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Reconstitution of stocks of bluefin tuna - Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 211/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy), Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop. (Cetara), Fedemar Srl (Cetara), Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc (Catane, Italy), Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl (Cetara), Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC (Pescara, Italy) and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (Pescara) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the adoption of 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).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-154/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Perform and Oasis projects - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Counter-claim - Default interest))

(2016/C 211/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

Applications, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the subsidies paid to the applicant in implementation of contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the balance of the unpaid subsidies under those contracts and, on the other, to order the applicant, by way of counterclaim, to reimburse the subsidies unduly paid under those contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias;

| 2) | Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 650 625,37, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 650 625,37, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 215754 ‘Open architecture for accessible services, integration and standardisation’ and No. 215952 ‘A complex multi-parameter system for the effective and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of motor capacity in sufferers of Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative illnesses’ concluded in the context of the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %;

| 3) | Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-155/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Persona and Terregov projects - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Counter-claim - Default interest))

(2016/C 211/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

Applications, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the subsidies paid to the applicant in implementation of the contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’, and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) is unfounded, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the balance of the unpaid subsidies under the first of those contracts and, on the other, to order the applicant, by way of counterclaim, to reimburse the subsidies unduly paid under those contracts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias;

| 2) | Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 606 570,61, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’ and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 606 570,61, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’ and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %;

| 3) | Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Zehnder Group International v EUIPO — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

(Case T-267/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark comfotherm - Earlier national word mark KOMFOTHERM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Relevant public - Interdependence of factors))

(2016/C 211/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zehnder Group International AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann and subsequently S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, H. Förster and Y. Holderied, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2014 (Case R 1318/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG and Zehnder Group International AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zehnder Group International AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zehnder Group International AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Österreichische Post v Commission

(Case T-463/14) (1)

((Directive 2004/17/EC - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Implementing decision exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17 - Article 30 of Directive2004/17 - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 211/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann and M. Oder, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Implementing Commission Decision 2014/184/EU of 2 April 2014 exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2014 L 101, p. 4), in so far as that directive continues to apply to the award of contracts for certain postal services in Austria.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Implementing Commission Decision 2014/184/EU of 2 April 2014 exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, in so far as it states that that directive continues to apply to the market for postal services for addressed letters between business customers and between business customers and private customers on an international level in Austria; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Implementing Commission Decision 2014/184/EU of 2 April 2014 exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, in so far as it states that that directive continues to apply to the market for postal services for addressed letters between business customers and between business customers and private customers on an international level in Austria;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Österreichische Post AG to bear its own costs and to pay eight tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Österreichische Post AG to bear its own costs and to pay eight tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 4. | The Commission shall bear two tenths of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission shall bear two tenths of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Fon Wireless v EUIPO — Henniger (Neofon)

(Case T-777/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Neofon - Earlier national word mark FON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Henniger (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: T. von Groll-Schacht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fon Wireless Ltd and Andreas Henniger.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Andreas Henniger to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Andreas Henniger to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue)

(Case T-803/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue - Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Intervener in the proceedings before the General Court, successor in law to San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mahou, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez-López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2014 (Case R 1382/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Compagnie Gervais Danone to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Compagnie Gervais Danone to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2016 — Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino)

(Case T-21/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino - Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2012/2013-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu and Franmax UAB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Franmax UAB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Franmax UAB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 C 107, 30.3.2015, p. 32.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Sharif University of Technology v Council

(Case T-52/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Support to the Government of Iran - Research and technology development in military or military-related fields - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law and error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Claim for damages))

(2016/C 211/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action for, first, annulment of Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 19), in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 3), in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sharif University of Technology to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sharif University of Technology to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga)

(Case T-54/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Liiga - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2014 (Case R 576/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Liiga as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Niagara Bottling v EUIPO (NIAGARA)

(Case T-89/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NIAGARA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Niagara Bottling LLC (Ontario, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Jakab, A. Schifko and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 784/2014-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the word mark NIAGARA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Niagara Bottling LLC to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Niagara Bottling LLC to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

(Case T-144/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA - Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal, SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, avocat)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos, Lda (Viseu, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2015 (Case R 1097/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L’Oréal, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/51

---

Order of the General Court of 21 April 2016 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

(Case T-539/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Seventh framework programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Recovery of a share of the financial contribution paid - Enforcement decision - Nature of the pleas relied on - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 211/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: S. Famiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Gullo, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4693 final of 17 July 2013 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 212 411,89, plus interest, owed by the applicant in the context of the MARE, Senior and ECRN projects.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/52

---

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)

(Case T-83/16)

(2016/C 211/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WIDIBA’ — Application for registration No 12 192 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 112/2015-2 and R 190/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,

| — | annul the contested decision as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 308 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 308 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

In any case,

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

In any case,

| — | order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/53

---

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)

(Case T-84/16)

(2016/C 211/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘widiba’ — Application for registration No 12 192 415

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 113/2015-2 and R 174/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,

| — | annul the contested decision at issue as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 415 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 415 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision at issue as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 415 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 415 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

In any case,

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 15 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 15 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures

In any case,

| — | order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/54

---

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON)

(Case T-115/16)

(2016/C 211/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandvik Intellectual Property AB (Sandviken, Sweden) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unipapel Industria, Comercio y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word in standard characters ‘ADVEON’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 164 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2016 in Case R 738/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | modify the contested decision such that the opposition is rejected and the designation of international registration IR 1164374 to the European Union is allowed; |
| --- | --- |

—

modify the contested decision such that the opposition is rejected and the designation of international registration IR 1164374 to the European Union is allowed;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, or; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, or;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | stay the proceedings until the European Court of Justice has submitted its decision in the procedure regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 in the matter Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek (Case C-654/15). |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceedings until the European Court of Justice has submitted its decision in the procedure regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 in the matter Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek (Case C-654/15).

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/55

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Dröge and Others v Commission

(Case T-142/16)

(2016/C 211/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Katharina Dröge (Berlin, Germany), Britta Haßelmann (Berlin) and Anton Hofreiter (Berlin) (represented by: Professor W. Cremer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the defendant’s unpublished and oral declaration of intention, aimed at the conclusion of a contract which is binding for the contracting parties — the European Union and the United States of America — and regarding the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (so-called TTIP documents), to be invalid or, in the alternative, contrary to EU law, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose (see, concerning the access regime, Annex III to Council document No 14029/15); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the defendant’s unpublished and oral declaration of intention, aimed at the conclusion of a contract which is binding for the contracting parties — the European Union and the United States of America — and regarding the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (so-called TTIP documents), to be invalid or, in the alternative, contrary to EU law, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose (see, concerning the access regime, Annex III to Council document No 14029/15);

| — | declare the defendant’s prior and unpublished (oral) decision to approve the contract (‘the approval decision’), which is aimed at the submission of the aforementioned declaration of intention, to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the defendant’s prior and unpublished (oral) decision to approve the contract (‘the approval decision’), which is aimed at the submission of the aforementioned declaration of intention, to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose;

| — | declare the defendant’s (oral) decision (‘the ordinance decision’) connected with the conclusion of a contract or a non-binding political agreement with the United States of America on the TTIP access regime and classifying that regime as binding under EU law to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the defendant’s (oral) decision (‘the ordinance decision’) connected with the conclusion of a contract or a non-binding political agreement with the United States of America on the TTIP access regime and classifying that regime as binding under EU law to be invalid, in so far as it subsequently prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States without exception from being accompanied by (vetted) staff with the inclusion of political group staff when viewing the documents in TTIP reading rooms established for that purpose;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU
  The applicants submit that the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU established a binding objective and legal requirement for the Union and its organs to take decisions as openly as possible. That optimisation requirement, enriched by the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU and geared towards the greatest possible transparency of Union action, is surmountable, provided that, in a given case, a justification in the form of a legitimate aim of EU law can be cited in opposition to it and that the limitation to attaining the objective is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. However, based on the possibility — which is withheld from national representatives — of accompaniment by vetted political group staff when accessing TTIP documents, such grounds do not exist.
  In addition, there is also no justification for access to TTIP documents, as on display in the reading rooms, not being possible for Union citizens.
  Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU has been infringed because the defendant’s TTIP negotiating mandate extends to objects which fall within the competence of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU

The applicants submit that the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU established a binding objective and legal requirement for the Union and its organs to take decisions as openly as possible. That optimisation requirement, enriched by the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU and geared towards the greatest possible transparency of Union action, is surmountable, provided that, in a given case, a justification in the form of a legitimate aim of EU law can be cited in opposition to it and that the limitation to attaining the objective is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. However, based on the possibility — which is withheld from national representatives — of accompaniment by vetted political group staff when accessing TTIP documents, such grounds do not exist.

In addition, there is also no justification for access to TTIP documents, as on display in the reading rooms, not being possible for Union citizens.

Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU has been infringed because the defendant’s TTIP negotiating mandate extends to objects which fall within the competence of the Member States.

| 2. | Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(1) TFEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU for the reasons mentioned in the first plea in law |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(1) TFEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU for the reasons mentioned in the first plea in law

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/56

---

Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T-149/16)

(2016/C 211/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme;

| — | order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment






  — | The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

—

The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment






  — | The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment

—

The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/57

---

Action brought on 6 April 2016 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)

(Case T-150/16)

(2016/C 211/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and C. Menebröcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘ECOLAB’ — Application for registration No 1 180 255

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 644/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of EUTMR;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty;

| — | Infringement of Articles 75 first sentence of EUTMR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 75 first sentence of EUTMR.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/58

---

Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Megasol Energie v Commission

(Case T-152/16)

(2016/C 211/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Megasol Energie AG (Deitingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Wegner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016;

| — | in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they impose antidumping and countervailing duties on solar modules exported into the EU by the applicant where the solar modules contain solar cells originally consigned in Taiwan from undertakings which are exempt from those measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they impose antidumping and countervailing duties on solar modules exported into the EU by the applicant where the solar modules contain solar cells originally consigned in Taiwan from undertakings which are exempt from those measures;

| — | in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they impose antidumping and countervailing duties on solar modules exported into the EU by the applicant where the solar modules contain solar cells originally consigned in Taiwan from various undertakings; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they impose antidumping and countervailing duties on solar modules exported into the EU by the applicant where the solar modules contain solar cells originally consigned in Taiwan from various undertakings;

| — | in the further alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/185 and 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | No investigation of exports from Switzerland
  The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties may be extended only if the conditions laid down in Article 13 of the basic antidumping regulation (‘the Basic Regulation’) are satisfied. This meant, in particular, that an investigation of circumvention was required to be initiated and carried out effectively for the exports at issue.
  Since the applicant exports solar modules from Switzerland into the EU but, contrary to Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation, no investigation was initiated for Switzerland, the applicant’s solar modules could not be subject to measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

No investigation of exports from Switzerland

The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties may be extended only if the conditions laid down in Article 13 of the basic antidumping regulation (‘the Basic Regulation’) are satisfied. This meant, in particular, that an investigation of circumvention was required to be initiated and carried out effectively for the exports at issue.

Since the applicant exports solar modules from Switzerland into the EU but, contrary to Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation, no investigation was initiated for Switzerland, the applicant’s solar modules could not be subject to measures.

| 2. | Erroneous investigation of the facts relation to Taiwan
  Contrary to the third sentence of Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, the Commission investigated erroneously the facts relating to a change in the pattern of trade between China and Taiwan. In particular, the ascertained values of trade statistics showed inconsistencies. It could not be inferred from the values that there had been transhipment through Taiwan. There is also no significant change in the pattern of trade in relation to Taiwan, since the increase of exports from Taiwan was only slight. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Erroneous investigation of the facts relation to Taiwan

Contrary to the third sentence of Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, the Commission investigated erroneously the facts relating to a change in the pattern of trade between China and Taiwan. In particular, the ascertained values of trade statistics showed inconsistencies. It could not be inferred from the values that there had been transhipment through Taiwan. There is also no significant change in the pattern of trade in relation to Taiwan, since the increase of exports from Taiwan was only slight.

| 3. | No investigation of the facts in relation to Switzerland
  No extended duties could be imposed on the solar modules exported by the applicant simply because no change at all has been found in the pattern of trade within the meaning of Article 13(3)(3) of the Basic Regulation as regards trade between China and Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

3.

No investigation of the facts in relation to Switzerland

No extended duties could be imposed on the solar modules exported by the applicant simply because no change at all has been found in the pattern of trade within the meaning of Article 13(3)(3) of the Basic Regulation as regards trade between China and Switzerland.

| 4. | No unjustified change in the pattern of trade
  Even if there was a change in the pattern of trade relating to Taiwan and Switzerland, quod non, the Commission did not, however, establish that such a change was not justified. |
| --- | --- |

4.

No unjustified change in the pattern of trade

Even if there was a change in the pattern of trade relating to Taiwan and Switzerland, quod non, the Commission did not, however, establish that such a change was not justified.

| 5. | Error of discretion by the Commission in adopting the contested regulations, on the ground of the lack of an option of exemption for the applicant by means of an undertaking invoice
  Whereas EU undertakings were, by means of an undertaking invoice, able to import goods exempt from the measures, this was not possible for the applicant. The wording of the undertaking is not tailored to undertakings from third countries which use cells from Malaysia or Taiwan. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Error of discretion by the Commission in adopting the contested regulations, on the ground of the lack of an option of exemption for the applicant by means of an undertaking invoice

Whereas EU undertakings were, by means of an undertaking invoice, able to import goods exempt from the measures, this was not possible for the applicant. The wording of the undertaking is not tailored to undertakings from third countries which use cells from Malaysia or Taiwan.

| 6. | Error of discretion by the Commission in adopting the contested regulations, on the ground of infringement of EU fundamental rights and of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation (‘the EEC-Switzerland Agreement’)
  Lastly, the applicant claims that its freedom to choose an occupation and its freedom to conduct a business (Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), its right to property (Article 17 of the Charter) and the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) have been infringed, since it has in particular been placed at a disadvantage compared to EU undertakings. The EEC-Switzerland Agreement prohibits discrimination against undertakings from the Contracting States. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Error of discretion by the Commission in adopting the contested regulations, on the ground of infringement of EU fundamental rights and of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation (‘the EEC-Switzerland Agreement’)

Lastly, the applicant claims that its freedom to choose an occupation and its freedom to conduct a business (Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), its right to property (Article 17 of the Charter) and the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) have been infringed, since it has in particular been placed at a disadvantage compared to EU undertakings. The EEC-Switzerland Agreement prohibits discrimination against undertakings from the Contracting States.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/59

---

Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE)

(Case T-155/16)

(2016/C 211/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michael Bloss (Nürtingen, Germany), Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE’ — Application for registration No 9 569 765

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 454/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 765 by the participants; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 765 by the participants;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, or; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, or;

| — | in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/60

---

Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)

(Case T-156/16)

(2016/C 211/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen, Germany), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM’ — Application for registration No 9 569 658

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 9/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 658 by the participants; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 658 by the participants;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs or; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs or;

| — | in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/61

---

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

(Case T-159/16)

(2016/C 211/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE O NADA’ — Application for registration No 11 603 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 2605/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 15 February 2016 and allow the EU trade mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 15 February 2016 and allow the EU trade mark applied for;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/61

---

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission

(Case T-172/16)

(2016/C 211/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni SRL (Catania, Italy) (represented by: E. Castorina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015, C(2015) 5549 final, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 February 2016, in so far as it provides (Article 4(5)) that ‘Italy shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under all schemes referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision’ and, in any case, in so far as it may prevent the applicant company obtaining the recovery of sums paid to the Agenzia delle Entrate dello Stato italiano in excess of the flat-rate of 10 % for its tax position (years 1990-1992), in accordance with Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002; law which the courts rely upon in the Italian legal system. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015, C(2015) 5549 final, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 February 2016, in so far as it provides (Article 4(5)) that ‘Italy shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under all schemes referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision’ and, in any case, in so far as it may prevent the applicant company obtaining the recovery of sums paid to the Agenzia delle Entrate dello Stato italiano in excess of the flat-rate of 10 % for its tax position (years 1990-1992), in accordance with Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002; law which the courts rely upon in the Italian legal system.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

| — | In this regard, it claims that, when the European Commission states, as it does in the contested decision, that it is objectively impossible to recover (from the other companies that had to pay no more than 10 % of the sums owed) the state aid held to be illegal, it is a fact in law that — according to the principles set out above — the applicant’s right to recover the sums paid in excess of the provisions of Law No 289/2002 may not be denied: otherwise, there would be an intolerable, very serious difference in treatment between the applicant and the businesses of the province of Catania, now relieved by the contested decision from any payment up to 90 % of the amount of the unpaid tax. |
| --- | --- |

—

In this regard, it claims that, when the European Commission states, as it does in the contested decision, that it is objectively impossible to recover (from the other companies that had to pay no more than 10 % of the sums owed) the state aid held to be illegal, it is a fact in law that — according to the principles set out above — the applicant’s right to recover the sums paid in excess of the provisions of Law No 289/2002 may not be denied: otherwise, there would be an intolerable, very serious difference in treatment between the applicant and the businesses of the province of Catania, now relieved by the contested decision from any payment up to 90 % of the amount of the unpaid tax.

Therefore, precisely as a result of the contested decision of the European Commission, an unfair competitive advantage has arisen for all the other companies, but to the detriment of the applicant, in respect of the damage sustained as a result of the natural disaster which occurred over 10 years before the decision of 14 August 2015. Under Italian law, businesses are not required to maintain administrative and accounting records for more than 10 years. Therefore, the Centro Morgagni is no longer in a position to provide evidence of having suffered damage for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, with obvious infringement of the principles of equality, right of defence, protection of legitimate expectations (Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 2, 6, 9, 21 TEU) and distortion of competition in the conditions for equal treatment of operators.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/62

---

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-174/16)

(2016/C 211/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0004 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1652/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/63

---

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-175/16)

(2016/C 211/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0008 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1725/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/64

---

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))

(Case T-177/16)

(2016/C 211/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mema GmbH l.G. (Terlan, Italy) (represented by: B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Community plant variety right at issue: Braeburn 78 (11078) — Plant variety Application No 2009/0954

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 in Case A001/2015

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further decision with the direction to annul the contested decision and order the CPVO to carry out a complementary examination pursuant to Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further decision with the direction to annul the contested decision and order the CPVO to carry out a complementary examination pursuant to Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 (Case A 001/2015); |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 (Case A 001/2015);

| — | in the alternative, in the event that an order is not granted in the form of the first and second points, stay these proceedings pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in force from 1 July 2015 (‘the Rules of Procedure’) until a final decision has been made in the proceedings in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 on the cancellation of plant variety rights for reference variety ‘Royal Braeburn’ (Application No 1998/1082; Plant variety No 11960). That decision is preliminary since, depending on the result, the reference variety will disappear or it will follow that Angers-Beaucouzé was and is unsuitable as a test location (see point 12) and therefore whether a complementary examination was necessary or not; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, in the event that an order is not granted in the form of the first and second points, stay these proceedings pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in force from 1 July 2015 (‘the Rules of Procedure’) until a final decision has been made in the proceedings in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 on the cancellation of plant variety rights for reference variety ‘Royal Braeburn’ (Application No 1998/1082; Plant variety No 11960). That decision is preliminary since, depending on the result, the reference variety will disappear or it will follow that Angers-Beaucouzé was and is unsuitable as a test location (see point 12) and therefore whether a complementary examination was necessary or not;

| — | order the CPVO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Misuse of discretion — Infringement of Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of discretion — Infringement of Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94;

| — | Infringement of a provision to be applied in implementing Regulation No 2100/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of a provision to be applied in implementing Regulation No 2100/94;

| — | Infringement of Point 57 of the CPVO apple test protocol; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Point 57 of the CPVO apple test protocol;

| — | Infringement of Part IV of the CPVO apple test protocol; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Part IV of the CPVO apple test protocol;

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Right to a hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Right to a hearing;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Incomplete statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Incomplete statement of reasons.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/65

---

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)

(Case T-178/16)

(2016/C 211/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Policolor’ — Application for registration No 10 277 176

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 346/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | in consequence, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457;

| — | dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No. 2015/2424. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No. 2015/2424.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/66

---

Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-141/15)

(2016/C 211/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to reimburse the applicant the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration under Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006;

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant those sums withheld together with compound interest at the rate defined in Article 12 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant those sums withheld together with compound interest at the rate defined in Article 12 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/66

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 April 2016 — Claus v Commission

(Case F-101/12) (1)

(2016/C 211/82)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25/5/2013, p. 36.

---