# Official Journal C 168/29 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 168 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6029 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 168

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6029 May 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2017/C 168/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 168/02 | Decision of the Court of Justice of 7 March 2017 on official holidays and judicial vacations | 2 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 168/03 | Decision of the General Court of 5 April 2017 on judicial vacations | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 168/01

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

Court of Justice

2017/C 168/02

Decision of the Court of Justice of 7 March 2017 on official holidays and judicial vacations

2

General Court

2017/C 168/03

Decision of the General Court of 5 April 2017 on judicial vacations

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 168/04 | Case C-598/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65(1) and (2) — Word mark LAGUIOLE — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Application of national law by EUIPO — Role of the EU Courts) | 5 |
| 2017/C 168/05 | Joined Cases C-217/15 and C-350/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi (C-217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C-350/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2 and 273 — National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Identity of the accused or penalised person — Absence) | 5 |
| 2017/C 168/06 | Case C-298/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Borta UAB v Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Contract not reaching the threshold laid down by that directive — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Limit on reliance on subcontracting — Submission of a common tender — Professional capacities of the tenderers — Changes to the tender specifications) | 6 |
| 2017/C 168/07 | Case C-336/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor — Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers — Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor) | 7 |
| 2017/C 168/08 | Case C-337/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition — Breaches of the duty to act diligently — Concept of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law — Non-material damage — Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman) | 8 |
| 2017/C 168/09 | Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(10) and (11) — Exclusion of certain export transactions for the purposes of calculating the dumping margin — Fair comparison between the export price and the normal value in the case of imports from a non-market economy country) | 8 |
| 2017/C 168/10 | Case C-391/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía — Spain) — Marina del Mediterráneo SL and Others v Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) — Article 2(1) — Decision of a contracting authority allowing an economic operator to participate in a procurement procedure — Decision not amenable to review under the applicable national legislation) | 9 |
| 2017/C 168/11 | Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Video Camera Recorders — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 — Explanatory notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 — Interpretation — Validity) | 10 |
| 2017/C 168/12 | Case C-488/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) — Annex XI — Daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations — Systematic and continuous exceedance of the limit values — Article 22 — Postponement of the deadlines set to attain certain limit values — Conditions under which applicable — Article 23(1) — Air quality plans — Shortest possible exceedance period — Appropriate measures — Information needed for an assessment) | 11 |
| 2017/C 168/13 | Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15) v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Road transport — Tax provisions — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Toll — Member States' obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality) | 12 |
| 2017/C 168/14 | Case C-544/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/114/EC — Article 6(1)(d) — Conditions of admission of third country nationals — Refusal of admission — Concept of threat to public security — Margin of discretion) | 12 |
| 2017/C 168/15 | Case C-638/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 5(1)(a) — Definitions of smoking tobacco, tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split and industrial processing) | 13 |
| 2017/C 168/16 | Case C-665/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Driving licences — EU driving licence network — Use of and connection to the EU network) | 14 |
| 2017/C 168/17 | Case C-668/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 2(2)(a) and (b) — Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit) | 14 |
| 2017/C 168/18 | Case C-58/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Improvement of port security — Directive 2005/65/EC — Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 — Infringement — No assessment of port security — Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers — No definition) | 15 |
| 2017/C 168/19 | Joined Cases C-124/16, C-188/16 and C-213/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Right to be informed about the charge — Service of a penalty order — Procedures — Mandatory appointment of person authorised to accept service — Non-resident accused person with no fixed place of residence — Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service) | 15 |
| 2017/C 168/20 | Case C-153/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Inappropriate storage of a large number of used tyres — Landfill not complying with the requirements fixed by Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health) | 16 |
| 2017/C 168/21 | Case C-83/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Customs Code — Retrospective export declaration — Concept of sufficient evidence — Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient) | 17 |
| 2017/C 168/22 | Case C-232/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Transport sector — Inter-regional bus transport services — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations — National judicial decision — Aid incompatible with the internal market) | 17 |
| 2017/C 168/23 | Case C-497/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Drug precursors — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Article 2(a) — Definition of scheduled substance — Exclusion of medicinal products — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 1(2) — Definition of medicinal product — Medicinal product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Article 2(a) — Definition of scheduled substance — Annex — Inclusion of medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — No effect on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004) | 18 |
| 2017/C 168/24 | Case C-515/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Enedis, SA v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — State aid — Concept of intervention by the State or through State resources — Solar power — Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price — Compensation in full — No prior notification) | 19 |
| 2017/C 168/25 | Case C-14/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA | 19 |
| 2017/C 168/26 | Case C-83/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2017 — KP v LO | 20 |
| 2017/C 168/27 | Case C-99/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Infineon Technologies AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-758/14: Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission | 20 |
| 2017/C 168/28 | Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union | 21 |
| 2017/C 168/29 | Case C-104/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 27 February 2017 — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu | 22 |
| 2017/C 168/30 | Case C-113/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad | 23 |
| 2017/C 168/31 | Case C-120/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets | 23 |
| 2017/C 168/32 | Case C-131/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel | 24 |
| 2017/C 168/33 | Case C-136/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 15 March 2017 — G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) | 24 |
| 2017/C 168/34 | Case C-156/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 26 |
| 2017/C 168/35 | Case C-157/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 27 |
| 2017/C 168/36 | Case C-172/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission | 27 |
| 2017/C 168/37 | Case C-173/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-771/14, ANKO v European Commission | 28 |
| 2017/C 168/38 | Case C-184/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15, IMG v Commission | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 168/39 | Case T-201/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Printeos v Commission | 30 |
| 2017/C 168/40 | Case T-207/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp) | 31 |
| 2017/C 168/41 | Case T-208/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP) | 31 |
| 2017/C 168/42 | Case T-209/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1) | 32 |
| 2017/C 168/43 | Case T-213/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK) | 33 |
| 2017/C 168/44 | Case T-215/17: Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR) | 33 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 168/04

Case C-598/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65(1) and (2) — Word mark LAGUIOLE — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Application of national law by EUIPO — Role of the EU Courts)

5

2017/C 168/05

Joined Cases C-217/15 and C-350/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi (C-217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C-350/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2 and 273 — National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Identity of the accused or penalised person — Absence)

5

2017/C 168/06

Case C-298/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Borta UAB v Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Contract not reaching the threshold laid down by that directive — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Limit on reliance on subcontracting — Submission of a common tender — Professional capacities of the tenderers — Changes to the tender specifications)

6

2017/C 168/07

Case C-336/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor — Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers — Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor)

7

2017/C 168/08

Case C-337/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition — Breaches of the duty to act diligently — Concept of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law — Non-material damage — Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman)

8

2017/C 168/09

Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(10) and (11) — Exclusion of certain export transactions for the purposes of calculating the dumping margin — Fair comparison between the export price and the normal value in the case of imports from a non-market economy country)

8

2017/C 168/10

Case C-391/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía — Spain) — Marina del Mediterráneo SL and Others v Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Review procedures — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 1(1) — Article 2(1) — Decision of a contracting authority allowing an economic operator to participate in a procurement procedure — Decision not amenable to review under the applicable national legislation)

9

2017/C 168/11

Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Video Camera Recorders — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 — Explanatory notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 — Interpretation — Validity)

10

2017/C 168/12

Case C-488/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) — Annex XI — Daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations — Systematic and continuous exceedance of the limit values — Article 22 — Postponement of the deadlines set to attain certain limit values — Conditions under which applicable — Article 23(1) — Air quality plans — Shortest possible exceedance period — Appropriate measures — Information needed for an assessment)

10

11

2017/C 168/13

Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15) v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Road transport — Tax provisions — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Toll — Member States' obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality)

12

2017/C 168/14

Case C-544/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/114/EC — Article 6(1)(d) — Conditions of admission of third country nationals — Refusal of admission — Concept of threat to public security — Margin of discretion)

12

2017/C 168/15

Case C-638/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 5(1)(a) — Definitions of smoking tobacco, tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split and industrial processing)

13

2017/C 168/16

Case C-665/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Driving licences — EU driving licence network — Use of and connection to the EU network)

14

2017/C 168/17

Case C-668/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 2(2)(a) and (b) — Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit)

14

2017/C 168/18

Case C-58/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Improvement of port security — Directive 2005/65/EC — Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 — Infringement — No assessment of port security — Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers — No definition)

15

2017/C 168/19

Joined Cases C-124/16, C-188/16 and C-213/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Right to be informed about the charge — Service of a penalty order — Procedures — Mandatory appointment of person authorised to accept service — Non-resident accused person with no fixed place of residence — Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service)

15

2017/C 168/20

Case C-153/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Inappropriate storage of a large number of used tyres — Landfill not complying with the requirements fixed by Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health)

16

2017/C 168/21

Case C-83/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Customs Code — Retrospective export declaration — Concept of sufficient evidence — Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient)

17

2017/C 168/22

Case C-232/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Transport sector — Inter-regional bus transport services — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations — National judicial decision — Aid incompatible with the internal market)

17

2017/C 168/23

Case C-497/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Drug precursors — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Article 2(a) — Definition of scheduled substance — Exclusion of medicinal products — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 1(2) — Definition of medicinal product — Medicinal product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Article 2(a) — Definition of scheduled substance — Annex — Inclusion of medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — No effect on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004)

18

2017/C 168/24

Case C-515/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Enedis, SA v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — State aid — Concept of intervention by the State or through State resources — Solar power — Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price — Compensation in full — No prior notification)

19

2017/C 168/25

Case C-14/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA

19

2017/C 168/26

Case C-83/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2017 — KP v LO

20

2017/C 168/27

Case C-99/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Infineon Technologies AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-758/14: Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission

20

2017/C 168/28

Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union

21

2017/C 168/29

Case C-104/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 27 February 2017 — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

22

2017/C 168/30

Case C-113/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

23

2017/C 168/31

Case C-120/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets

23

2017/C 168/32

Case C-131/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

24

2017/C 168/33

Case C-136/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 15 March 2017 — G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

24

2017/C 168/34

Case C-156/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

26

2017/C 168/35

Case C-157/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

27

2017/C 168/36

Case C-172/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission

ANKO

European Commission

27

2017/C 168/37

Case C-173/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-771/14, ANKO v European Commission

ANKO

European Commission

28

2017/C 168/38

Case C-184/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15, IMG v Commission

29

General Court

2017/C 168/39

Case T-201/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Printeos v Commission

30

2017/C 168/40

Case T-207/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)

31

2017/C 168/41

Case T-208/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)

31

2017/C 168/42

Case T-209/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)

32

2017/C 168/43

Case T-213/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

33

2017/C 168/44

Case T-215/17: Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR)

33

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/1

---

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

(2017/C 168/01)

Last publication

OJ C 161, 22.5.2017

Past publications

OJ C 151, 15.5.2017

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017

OJ C 129, 24.4.2017

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017

OJ C 104, 3.4.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

Court of Justice

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

of 7 March 2017

on official holidays and judicial vacations

(2017/C 168/02)

THE COURT,

having regard to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,

whereas it is necessary, in accordance with that provision, to establish the list of official holidays and to set the dates of the judicial vacations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:

| — | New Year’s Day, |
| --- | --- |

—

New Year’s Day,

| — | Easter Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter Monday,

| — | 1 May, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 May,

| — | Ascension, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ascension,

| — | Whit Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Whit Monday,

| — | 23 June, |
| --- | --- |

—

23 June,

| — | 15 August, |
| --- | --- |

—

15 August,

| — | 1 November, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 November,

| — | 25 December, |
| --- | --- |

—

25 December,

| — | 26 December. |
| --- | --- |

—

26 December.

Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 7 March 2017.

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

Registrar

K. LENAERTS

President

---

General Court

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/4

---

DECISION OF THE GENERAL COURT

of 5 April 2017

on judicial vacations

(2017/C 168/03)

THE GENERAL COURT,

Having regard to Article 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the judicial year beginning on 1 September 2017, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 41(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Luxembourg, 5 April 2017.

E. COULON

Registrar

M. JAEGER

President

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole

(Case C-598/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Article 65(1) and (2) - Word mark LAGUIOLE - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law - Application of national law by EUIPO - Role of the EU Courts))

(2017/C 168/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner (represented by: A. Sam-Simenot, avocate), Forge de Laguiole SARL (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi (C-217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C-350/15)

(Joined Cases C-217/15 and C-350/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2 and 273 - National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Identity of the accused or penalised person - Absence))

(2017/C 168/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

Party in the main proceedings

Massimo Orsi (C 217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C 350/15)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits criminal proceedings to be brought for non-payment of value added tax, after the imposition of a definitive tax penalty with respect to the same act or omission, where that penalty was imposed on a company with legal personality, while those criminal proceedings were brought against a natural person.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

OJ C 311 21.9.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Borta’ UAB v Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ

(Case C-298/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Contract not reaching the threshold laid down by that directive - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Limit on reliance on subcontracting - Submission of a common tender - Professional capacities of the tenderers - Changes to the tender specifications))

(2017/C 168/06)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Borta’ UAB

Defendant: Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | As regards a public contract which is not covered by the scope 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, but which has a certain cross-border interest, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 24(5) of the Lietuvos Respublikos viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas (Law on public procurement), which provides that, where subcontractors are relied on for the performance of a public works contract, the tenderer is required to perform itself the main works, as defined by the contracting entity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As regards a public contract which is not covered by the scope 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, but which has a certain cross-border interest, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 24(5) of the Lietuvos Respublikos viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas (Law on public procurement), which provides that, where subcontractors are relied on for the performance of a public works contract, the tenderer is required to perform itself the main works, as defined by the contracting entity.

| 2. | As regards such a public contract, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency which derive from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the contracting entity from making changes to a clause in the tender specifications, after publication of the tender notice, relating to the conditions and scheme for combining professional capacities, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, provided, first, that the changes made are not so substantial that they have attracted potential tenderers which, in the absence of such changes, would not be in a position to submit a tender, second, they are adequately publicised and, third, they are made before the tenderers submit their bids, that the time limit for submitting those tenders is extended when the changes concerned are substantial, the length of that extension depending on the extent of those changes, and that the length of time is sufficient to allow the economic operators concerned to adapt their tender as a consequence, which is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As regards such a public contract, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency which derive from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the contracting entity from making changes to a clause in the tender specifications, after publication of the tender notice, relating to the conditions and scheme for combining professional capacities, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, provided, first, that the changes made are not so substantial that they have attracted potential tenderers which, in the absence of such changes, would not be in a position to submit a tender, second, they are adequately publicised and, third, they are made before the tenderers submit their bids, that the time limit for submitting those tenders is extended when the changes concerned are substantial, the length of that extension depending on the extent of those changes, and that the length of time is sufficient to allow the economic operators concerned to adapt their tender as a consequence, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 3. | Article 54(6) of Directive 2004/17, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as precluding a clause in tender specifications, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, which, in a case where a common tender is submitted by several tenderers, requires that the contribution of each of them in order to satisfy the requirements applicable with regard to professional capacities correspond, proportionally, to the share of the works that it will actually perform if that bid is successful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 54(6) of Directive 2004/17, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as precluding a clause in tender specifications, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, which, in a case where a common tender is submitted by several tenderers, requires that the contribution of each of them in order to satisfy the requirements applicable with regard to professional capacities correspond, proportionally, to the share of the works that it will actually perform if that bid is successful.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

(Case C-336/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor - Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers - Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor))

(2017/C 168/07)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unionen

Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden,

ISS Facility Services AB,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, the transferee must, when dismissing an employee more than one year after the transfer of the undertaking, include, in the calculation of that employee’s length of service, which is relevant for determining the period of notice to which that employee is entitled, the length of service which that employee acquired with the transferor.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen

(Case C-337/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition - Breaches of the duty to act diligently - Concept of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of a rule of EU law - Non-material damage - Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman))

(2017/C 168/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Ombudsman (represented initially by: G. Grill, and subsequently by L. Papadias and P. Dyrberg, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares the application made by Ms Claire Staelen in her response for the European Ombudsman to be ordered to pay her compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares the application made by Ms Claire Staelen in her response for the European Ombudsman to be ordered to pay her compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 inadmissible;

| 2. | Sets aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238);

| 3. | Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Ms Claire Staelen compensation in the amount of EUR 7 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Ms Claire Staelen compensation in the amount of EUR 7 000;

| 4. | Orders Ms Claire Staelen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in relation to the cross-appeal, dismissed by order of 29 June 2016, Ombudsman v Staelen (C-337/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:670); |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Claire Staelen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in relation to the cross-appeal, dismissed by order of 29 June 2016, Ombudsman v Staelen (C-337/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:670);

| 5. | Orders the European Ombudsman to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Claire Staelen in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the main appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Ombudsman to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Claire Staelen in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the main appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

(Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(10) and (11) - Exclusion of certain export transactions for the purposes of calculating the dumping margin - Fair comparison between the export price and the normal value in the case of imports from a non-market economy country))

(2017/C 168/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd, (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, Agents, and by N. Tuominen, avocat), European Commission (represented by T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, Agents), European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council (T-558/12 and T-559/12, EU:T:2015:237); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council (T-558/12 and T-559/12, EU:T:2015:237);

| 2. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, in so far as it relates to Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, in so far as it relates to Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd;

| 3. | Dismisses the appeal in Case C-377/15 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the appeal in Case C-377/15 P;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 as well as those relating to the appeal proceedings in Case C-376/15 P; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 as well as those relating to the appeal proceedings in Case C-376/15 P;

| 5. | Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the appeal proceedings in Case C-377/15 P; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the appeal proceedings in Case C-377/15 P;

| 6. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 as well as those relating to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 as well as those relating to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía — Spain) — Marina del Mediterráneo SL and Others v Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía

(Case C-391/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Review procedures - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 1(1) - Article 2(1) - Decision of a contracting authority allowing an economic operator to participate in a procurement procedure - Decision not amenable to review under the applicable national legislation))

(2017/C 168/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marina del Mediterráneo SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Duquesa SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Estepona SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Este SL, Marinas del Mediterráneo Torre SL, Marina del Mediterráneo Marbella SL, Gómez Palma SC, Enrique Alemán SA, Cyes Infraestructuras SA and Cysur Obras y Medioambiente SA

Defendant: Agencia Pública de Puertos de Andalucía

Intervening parties: Consejería de Obras Públicas y Vivienda de la Junta de Andalucía, Nassir Bin Abdullah and Sons SL, Puerto Deportivo de Marbella SA and Ayuntamiento de Marbella

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a decision allowing a tenderer to participate in a procurement procedure — a decision allegedly adopted in breach of EU public procurement law or the national legislation transposing it — is not classed among the preparatory acts of a contracting authority which may be subject to an independent judicial review; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a decision allowing a tenderer to participate in a procurement procedure — a decision allegedly adopted in breach of EU public procurement law or the national legislation transposing it — is not classed among the preparatory acts of a contracting authority which may be subject to an independent judicial review;

| 2. | Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, have direct effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66, have direct effect.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany, Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — GROFA GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15)

(Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Video Camera Recorders - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 - Explanatory notes - Interpretation - Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 - Interpretation - Validity))

(2017/C 168/11)

Language of the case: German and Dutch

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg, Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GROFA GmbH (C-435/15), X, GoPro Coöperatief UA (C-666/15)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-435/15), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (C-666/15)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 of 29 November 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in Case C-435/15. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1249/2011 of 29 November 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in Case C-435/15.

| 2. | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 of 8 August 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in that case, but that it is invalid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 876/2014 of 8 August 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable by analogy to products with the characteristics of the three camera models in the GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition range at issue in that case, but that it is invalid.

| 3. | Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted, having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the CN concerning those subheadings, as meaning that video footage of more than 30 minutes recorded in separate files each lasting less than 30 minutes must be considered to be a recording of at least 30 minutes of a single piece of video footage, irrespective of whether the user is unable to perceive the transition from one file to the next during the playback of those files or, conversely, whether he must, in principle, during that playback, open each of the files separately. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted, having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the CN concerning those subheadings, as meaning that video footage of more than 30 minutes recorded in separate files each lasting less than 30 minutes must be considered to be a recording of at least 30 minutes of a single piece of video footage, irrespective of whether the user is unable to perceive the transition from one file to the next during the playback of those files or, conversely, whether he must, in principle, during that playback, open each of the files separately.

| 4. | The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the versions resulting, successively, from Implementing Regulations No 1006/2011, No 927/2012 and No 1001/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a video camera recorder which is capable of recording from signals from external sources, without, however, being able to reproduce them by means of an external television receiver or monitor, that video camera recorder being able to play on an external screen or monitor only files which it has itself recorded through its lens, cannot be classified under tariff subheading 8525 80 99 of that Combined Nomenclature. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the versions resulting, successively, from Implementing Regulations No 1006/2011, No 927/2012 and No 1001/2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a video camera recorder which is capable of recording from signals from external sources, without, however, being able to reproduce them by means of an external television receiver or monitor, that video camera recorder being able to play on an external screen or monitor only files which it has itself recorded through its lens, cannot be classified under tariff subheading 8525 80 99 of that Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-488/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) - Annex XI - Daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations - Systematic and continuous exceedance of the limit values - Article 22 - Postponement of the deadlines set to attain certain limit values - Conditions under which applicable - Article 23(1) - Air quality plans - ‘Shortest possible’ exceedance period - Appropriate measures - Information needed for an assessment))

(2017/C 168/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková, S. Petrova, P. Mihaylova and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and M. Georgieva, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Gawłowska, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that:






  — | by exceeding the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zones and agglomerations BG0001 AG Sofia, BG0002 AG Plovdiv, BG0004 North Bulgaria, BG0005 South-West Bulgaria and BG0006 South-East Bulgaria; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that:

—

by exceeding the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zones and agglomerations BG0001 AG Sofia, BG0002 AG Plovdiv, BG0004 North Bulgaria, BG0005 South-West Bulgaria and BG0006 South-East Bulgaria;

| — | by exceeding the daily limit value for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zone BG0003 AG Varna and the annual limit value in 2007, 2008 and from 2010 until 2014 inclusive in zone BG0003 AG Varna,
  the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and |
| --- | --- |

—

by exceeding the daily limit value for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zone BG0003 AG Varna and the annual limit value in 2007, 2008 and from 2010 until 2014 inclusive in zone BG0003 AG Varna,

the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and

| — | in view of the fact that the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations in all of the abovementioned zones and agglomerations continued to be exceeded, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive and in particular the obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible, as regards the period from 11 June 2010 to the year 2014 inclusive; |
| --- | --- |

—

in view of the fact that the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations in all of the abovementioned zones and agglomerations continued to be exceeded, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive and in particular the obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible, as regards the period from 11 June 2010 to the year 2014 inclusive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15) v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

(Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Road transport - Tax provisions - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Toll - Member States' obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Flat-rate fine - Proportionality))

(2017/C 168/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15)

Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out therein of proportionality of the penalties which it covers precludes a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all offences, whatever their nature and gravity, under the rules on the obligation to make prior payment of the toll for use of a road infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out therein of proportionality of the penalties which it covers precludes a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all offences, whatever their nature and gravity, under the rules on the obligation to make prior payment of the toll for use of a road infrastructure;

| 2. | Article 9a of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2011/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of proportionality referred to therein does not preclude a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which institutes strict liability. However, it must be interpreted as precluding the level of the penalty provided for by that system. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9a of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2011/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of proportionality referred to therein does not preclude a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which institutes strict liability. However, it must be interpreted as precluding the level of the penalty provided for by that system.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-544/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/114/EC - Article 6(1)(d) - Conditions of admission of third country nationals - Refusal of admission - Concept of ‘threat to public security’ - Margin of discretion))

(2017/C 168/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sahar Fahimian

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

intervener: Stadt Darmstadt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities, where a third country national has applied to them for a visa for study purposes, have a wide discretion in ascertaining, in the light of all the relevant elements of the situation of that national, whether he represents a threat, if only potential, to public security. That provision must also be interpreted as not precluding the competent national authorities from refusing to admit to the territory of the Member State concerned, for study purposes, a third country national who holds a degree from a university which is the subject of EU restrictive measures because of its large scale involvement with the Iranian Government in military or related fields, and who plans to carry out research in that Member State in a field that is sensitive for public security, if the elements available to those authorities give reason to fear that the knowledge acquired by that person during his research may subsequently be used for purposes contrary to public security. It is for the national court hearing an action brought against the decision of the competent national authorities to refuse to grant the visa sought to ascertain whether that decision is based on sufficient grounds and a sufficiently solid factual basis.

---

(1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-638/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 5(1)(a) - Definitions of ‘smoking tobacco’, ‘tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split’ and ‘industrial processing’))

(2017/C 168/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eko-Tabak s. r. o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that dried, flat, irregular, partly stripped leaf tobacco and/or parts thereof which have undergone primary drying and controlled dampening, which contain glycerine and which are capable of being smoked after simple processing by means of crushing or hand-cutting, fall within the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ for the purpose of those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-665/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Driving licences - EU driving licence network - Use of and connection to the EU network))

(2017/C 168/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, M. Farrajota and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rules that, by not having put in place the connection to the EU driving licence network, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rules that, by not having put in place the connection to the EU driving licence network, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

(Case C-668/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit))

(2017/C 168/17)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S

Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin is to be interpreted as not precluding the practice of a credit institution which requires a customer whose driving licence indicates a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association to produce additional identification in the form of a copy of the customer’s passport or residence permit.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-58/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Improvement of port security - Directive 2005/65/EC - Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 - Infringement - No assessment of port security - Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers - No definition))

(2017/C 168/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, in failing to ensure that, for the German ports of Düsseldorf, Köln-Niehl I, Godorf, Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Neuss, Duisburg Außen-/Parallelhafen, Krefeld-Linn, Stromhafen Krefeld, Duisburg Ruhrort-Meiderich, Gelsenkirchen and Mülheim, in the Land of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), the boundaries of each port are defined, port security assessments and port security plans are carried out, and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, in failing to ensure that, for the German ports of Düsseldorf, Köln-Niehl I, Godorf, Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Neuss, Duisburg Außen-/Parallelhafen, Krefeld-Linn, Stromhafen Krefeld, Duisburg Ruhrort-Meiderich, Gelsenkirchen and Mülheim, in the Land of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), the boundaries of each port are defined, port security assessments and port security plans are carried out, and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16)

(Joined Cases C-124/16, C-188/16 and C-213/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right to be informed about the charge - Service of a penalty order - Procedures - Mandatory appointment of person authorised to accept service - Non-resident accused person with no fixed place of residence - Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service))

(2017/C 168/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München, Landgericht München I

Parties in the main proceedings

Ianos Tranca (C-124/16), Tanja Reiter (C-213/16) and Ionel Opria (C-188/16)

intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2, Article 3(1)(c), and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, provides that the accused person who neither resides in that Member State nor has a fixed place of residence in that State or in his Member State of origin is required to appoint an agent for the purposes of service of a penalty order concerning him and that the period for lodging an objection to that order, before it becomes enforceable, runs from service of that order on that agent.

Article 6 of Directive 2012/13, however, requires that when the penalty order is enforced, as soon as the person concerned has actually become aware of the order, he should be placed in the same situation as if that order had been served on him personally and, in particular, that he have the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection, where necessary, benefiting from having his position restored to the status quo ante.

It is for the referring court to ensure that the national procedure for the accused person’s position being restored to the status quo ante and the conditions to which the exercise of that procedure is subject are applied in a manner consistent with those requirements and that that procedure thus permits the effective exercise of the rights provided for in Article 6.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-153/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Inappropriate storage of a large number of used tyres - Landfill not complying with the requirements fixed by Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health))

(2017/C 168/20)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: A. Grum, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by accepting in a gravel mine situated on the territory of the municipality of Lovrenc na Dravskem polju (Slovenia) a persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health, as a result of the inappropriate storage of large quantities of disused tyres, of the mixture of the latter with other waste and the landfill thereof in infringement of the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Slovenia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3)(d) of that directive, as well as Articles 12 and 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by accepting in a gravel mine situated on the territory of the municipality of Lovrenc na Dravskem polju (Slovenia) a persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health, as a result of the inappropriate storage of large quantities of disused tyres, of the mixture of the latter with other waste and the landfill thereof in infringement of the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Slovenia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3)(d) of that directive, as well as Articles 12 and 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.

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

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3) | Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay two0thirds of those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay two0thirds of those of the European Commission.

| 4) | Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/17

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

(Case C-83/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Customs Code - Retrospective export declaration - Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ - Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient))

(2017/C 168/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The combined provisions of Article 161(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Article 788 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 430/2010 of 20 May 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a seller established in the customs territory of the European Union is considered to be an exporter, within the meaning of the former provision, in the event that, following the conclusion of a contract for the sale of the goods in question, the ownership of those goods is transferred to a purchaser established outside that customs territory. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The combined provisions of Article 161(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Article 788 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 430/2010 of 20 May 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a seller established in the customs territory of the European Union is considered to be an exporter, within the meaning of the former provision, in the event that, following the conclusion of a contract for the sale of the goods in question, the ownership of those goods is transferred to a purchaser established outside that customs territory.

| 2. | Subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the Member States are entitled to require supporting documents in addition to a contract for the sale of a yacht to a person established in another Member State and removal of that yacht from the shipping registers of the Member State concerned, on condition that such a requirement complies with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the Member States are entitled to require supporting documents in addition to a contract for the sale of a yacht to a person established in another Member State and removal of that yacht from the shipping registers of the Member State concerned, on condition that such a requirement complies with the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Article 795 of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority called upon to accept a retrospective export declaration within the meaning of that provision is not bound, under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, by the assessment, by a customs authority, as to whether the evidence under Article 796da(4) of the regulation is sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 795 of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority called upon to accept a retrospective export declaration within the meaning of that provision is not bound, under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, by the assessment, by a customs authority, as to whether the evidence under Article 796da(4) of the regulation is sufficient.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/17

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission

(Case C-232/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Transport sector - Inter-regional bus transport services - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations - National judicial decision - Aid incompatible with the internal market))

(2017/C 168/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Simet SpA (represented by: A. Clarizia, C. Varrone and P. Clarizia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Simet SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Simet SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/18

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč

(Case C-497/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Drug precursors - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Article 2(a) - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Exclusion of medicinal products - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘medicinal product’ - Medicinal product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Article 2(a) - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Annex - Inclusion of medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - No effect on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004))

(2017/C 168/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud

Party to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

Juraj Sokáč

Operative part of the order

‘Medicinal products’, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, which contain ‘scheduled substances’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1258/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, remain excluded from the scope of Regulation No 273/2004 following the entry into force of Regulation No 1258/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1259/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/19

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Enedis, SA v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

(Case C-515/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ - Solar power - Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price - Compensation in full - No prior notification))

(2017/C 168/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enedis, SA

Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Operative part of the order

| 1) | Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an obligation, such as that introduced by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to purchase electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price and that is financed by all final consumers of electricity must be regarded as intervention by the State or through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an obligation, such as that introduced by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to purchase electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price and that is financed by all final consumers of electricity must be regarded as intervention by the State or through State resources.

| 2) | Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a national measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU has not been notified to the European Commission in advance, it is for the national courts to draw all the inferences of that unlawfulness, in particular as regards the validity of the measures implementing that measure. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a national measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU has not been notified to the European Commission in advance, it is for the national courts to draw all the inferences of that unlawfulness, in particular as regards the validity of the measures implementing that measure.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA

(Case C-14/17)

(2017/C 168/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAR Srl

Defendant: Iveco Orecchia SpA

Questions referred

| 1 | Must Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it requires that proof that the products to be supplied are equivalent to the original products be presented at the stage of submission of the tender? |
| --- | --- |

1

Must Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it requires that proof that the products to be supplied are equivalent to the original products be presented at the stage of submission of the tender?

| 2 | In the alternative, in the event that Question (a) on interpretation is to be answered in the negative: which steps are required to ensure that there is respect for the principles of equal treatment and impartiality, of open competition and sound administration, and for other tenderers’ rights of defence and right to be heard? |
| --- | --- |

2

In the alternative, in the event that Question (a) on interpretation is to be answered in the negative: which steps are required to ensure that there is respect for the principles of equal treatment and impartiality, of open competition and sound administration, and for other tenderers’ rights of defence and right to be heard?

---

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

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2017 — KP v LO

(Case C-83/17)

(2017/C 168/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KP

Defendant: LO

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the rule of subsidiarity set out in Article 4(2) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that that rule is applicable only where an application initiating maintenance proceedings is lodged in a State other than the State in which the maintenance creditor is habitually resident?
  If that question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the rule of subsidiarity set out in Article 4(2) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that that rule is applicable only where an application initiating maintenance proceedings is lodged in a State other than the State in which the maintenance creditor is habitually resident?

If that question is answered in the negative:

| 2. | Is Article 4(2) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘unable ... to obtain maintenance’ also refers to cases in which, on the ground of mere failure to comply with certain formal legislative conditions, the law of the previous place of residence does not provide for a right to retroactive maintenance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 4(2) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘unable ... to obtain maintenance’ also refers to cases in which, on the ground of mere failure to comply with certain formal legislative conditions, the law of the previous place of residence does not provide for a right to retroactive maintenance?

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/20

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Infineon Technologies AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-758/14: Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission

(Case C-99/17 P)

(2017/C 168/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Infineon Technologies AG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt, T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

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 (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2016, Case T-758/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2016, Case T-758/14;

| — | annul the Decision of the European Commission No. C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) in so far as Infineon Technologies AG is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision of the European Commission No. C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) in so far as Infineon Technologies AG is concerned;

| — | in eventu, reduce the fine in the amount of EUR 82 874 000imposed on the Appellant according to paragraph 457 (a) of the Commission’s Decision of 3 September 2014, to a proportionate amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

in eventu, reduce the fine in the amount of EUR 82 874 000imposed on the Appellant according to paragraph 457 (a) of the Commission’s Decision of 3 September 2014, to a proportionate amount;

| — | in eventu, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in eventu, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

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

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In essence the Appellant submits that:

| — | the General Court failed to have regard to its obligation to carry out a sufficient review of the contested Decision, as provided for in Article 263 TFEU, in particular due to the General Court in the present case having adopted an erroneous approach of an incomplete selective judicial review. Despite all of the contacts at issue in the Decision having been contested by the Appellant, the General Court only reviewed less than half of these contacts, without providing sufficient reasoning as to the selection of particular contacts to be reviewed or not to be reviewed and without any legal basis for doing so; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court failed to have regard to its obligation to carry out a sufficient review of the contested Decision, as provided for in Article 263 TFEU, in particular due to the General Court in the present case having adopted an erroneous approach of an incomplete selective judicial review. Despite all of the contacts at issue in the Decision having been contested by the Appellant, the General Court only reviewed less than half of these contacts, without providing sufficient reasoning as to the selection of particular contacts to be reviewed or not to be reviewed and without any legal basis for doing so;

| — | the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the application of Article 101 TFEU, in particular due to the finding of an ‘overall’ restriction of competition by object on the part of the Appellant, mainly through an exchange on general market trends and forecasts on pricing developments. Moreover, the Commission and General Court failed to have regard to the conditions for establishing a single and continuous infringement, as applied by the Court in its case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the application of Article 101 TFEU, in particular due to the finding of an ‘overall’ restriction of competition by object on the part of the Appellant, mainly through an exchange on general market trends and forecasts on pricing developments. Moreover, the Commission and General Court failed to have regard to the conditions for establishing a single and continuous infringement, as applied by the Court in its case-law;

| — | the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the calculation of the fine imposed on the Appellant. In particular, the General Court failed to consider the effects arising from its own incomplete selective review (with only a few of the contested contacts at issue being verified) and, consequently, failed to have regard to its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fine imposed. The General Court moreover erred in — and failed to sufficiently state reasons for — including the non-SIM revenues of the Appellant which led to the fine being excessive and thus disproportionate.
  Further arguments relate to several distortions of evidence by the General Court, an erroneous allocation of the burden of proof regarding potentially unreliable evidence and errors of law relating to evidence used by the Commission against the Appellant which was not disclosed throughout the Commission proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the calculation of the fine imposed on the Appellant. In particular, the General Court failed to consider the effects arising from its own incomplete selective review (with only a few of the contested contacts at issue being verified) and, consequently, failed to have regard to its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fine imposed. The General Court moreover erred in — and failed to sufficiently state reasons for — including the non-SIM revenues of the Appellant which led to the fine being excessive and thus disproportionate.

Further arguments relate to several distortions of evidence by the General Court, an erroneous allocation of the burden of proof regarding potentially unreliable evidence and errors of law relating to evidence used by the Commission against the Appellant which was not disclosed throughout the Commission proceedings.

| — | In the alternative, the Judgment is vitiated by a breach of the principle of proportionality, in particular in so far as the General Court failed to grant to the Appellant a sufficient fine reduction due to its limited participation in the infringement at issue, an insufficient consideration of mitigating factors and in terms of the absolute amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant being disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the Judgment is vitiated by a breach of the principle of proportionality, in particular in so far as the General Court failed to grant to the Appellant a sufficient fine reduction due to its limited participation in the infringement at issue, an insufficient consideration of mitigating factors and in terms of the absolute amount of the fine imposed on the Appellant being disproportionate.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/21

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-100/17 P)

(2017/C 168/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

| — | set aside the General Court’s judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the General Court’s judgment;

| — | rule on the substance and annul the Regulation 397/2004 (1) or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Annulment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the substance and annul the Regulation 397/2004 (1) or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Annulment; and

| — | order the Council to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the General Court proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the General Court proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant puts forward the following arguments:

| — | The General Court committed an error in law by holding that the Appellant no longer has an interest in the second and third pleas in law. When deciding whether the Appellant has a continued interest in the case, the Court must take into account all evidence and information before it and look at the overall context. The errors in the Council’s dumping margin calculations are methodological and liable of recurring in the future. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court committed an error in law by holding that the Appellant no longer has an interest in the second and third pleas in law. When deciding whether the Appellant has a continued interest in the case, the Court must take into account all evidence and information before it and look at the overall context. The errors in the Council’s dumping margin calculations are methodological and liable of recurring in the future.

| — | The General Court committed an error of law in finding without properly addressing (in some cases, not addressing at all) the Appellant’s arguments that the EU industry’s shifting of production to the high-value segment of the EU bed linen market and the increasing EU imports of bed linen from Turkish producers related to the EU industry did not break the causal link between the alleged dumping and the alleged material injury of the EU industry. Furthermore, the findings of the General Court are based on distortions of the facts as presented in Regulation 397/2004 and incorrect legal characterisations of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court committed an error of law in finding without properly addressing (in some cases, not addressing at all) the Appellant’s arguments that the EU industry’s shifting of production to the high-value segment of the EU bed linen market and the increasing EU imports of bed linen from Turkish producers related to the EU industry did not break the causal link between the alleged dumping and the alleged material injury of the EU industry. Furthermore, the findings of the General Court are based on distortions of the facts as presented in Regulation 397/2004 and incorrect legal characterisations of the facts.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004, L 66, p. 1).

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 27 February 2017 — SC Cali Esprou SRL v Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-104/17)

(2017/C 168/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Cali Esprou SRL

Respondent: Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Can Article 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) be interpreted as precluding the adoption, in a Member State of the European Union, of legislation that imposes a contribution payable by the economic operator which places packaged goods and packaging on the market, without in any way altering the goods or packaging, and sells them in the same form to an economic operator which, in turn, sells them on to the final consumer, the amount of the contribution being fixed per kilogram (kg), on the basis of the difference between, on the one hand, the quantities of packaging waste corresponding to the minimum targets for recovery or incineration in waste incineration plants with energy recovery and waste recycling facilities, and, on the other, the quantities of packaging waste actually recovered or incinerated in waste incineration plants with energy recovery and waste recycling facilities?

---

(1)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

(Case C-113/17)

(2017/C 168/30)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: QJ

Respondent: Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’) be interpreted to the effect that a national court deciding on the merits of an applicant’s need for international protection may, on the grounds that a negative decision has been repeatedly set aside and the case referred back to an administrative body on the basis of a repeatedly successful appeal, which has thus been shown to be ineffective, decide itself to grant such protection to the applicant, even if it does not have such competence under national law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’) be interpreted to the effect that a national court deciding on the merits of an applicant’s need for international protection may, on the grounds that a negative decision has been repeatedly set aside and the case referred back to an administrative body on the basis of a repeatedly successful appeal, which has thus been shown to be ineffective, decide itself to grant such protection to the applicant, even if it does not have such competence under national law?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does an appellate court competent to hear appeals concerning points of fact and law (the Najvyšší súd (Supreme Court) (Slovak Republic)) also have such jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does an appellate court competent to hear appeals concerning points of fact and law (the Najvyšší súd (Supreme Court) (Slovak Republic)) also have such jurisdiction?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets

(Case C-120/17)

(2017/C 168/31)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Other party to the proceedings: Ministru kabinets

Questions referred

| (1) | In view of the shared competences of the European Union and the Member States in the area of agriculture, are the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 (1) to be interpreted, in the light of one of the objectives of that regulation (that farmers should participate in the early retirement measure), as precluding a Member State, in the context of measures implementing that regulation, from enacting legislation pursuant to which support for early retirement from farming may be inherited? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In view of the shared competences of the European Union and the Member States in the area of agriculture, are the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 (1) to be interpreted, in the light of one of the objectives of that regulation (that farmers should participate in the early retirement measure), as precluding a Member State, in the context of measures implementing that regulation, from enacting legislation pursuant to which support for early retirement from farming may be inherited?

| (2) | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, that is, if the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 prohibit the inheritance of early retirement support, is it possible, in a situation in which a legal provision of a Member State has been held by the European Commission, under the appropriate procedure, to be compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 and farmers have participated in the early retirement measure in accordance with national practice, for an individual right to inherit the support granted under that measure to have been acquired? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, that is, if the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 prohibit the inheritance of early retirement support, is it possible, in a situation in which a legal provision of a Member State has been held by the European Commission, under the appropriate procedure, to be compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 and farmers have participated in the early retirement measure in accordance with national practice, for an individual right to inherit the support granted under that measure to have been acquired?

| (3) | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, that is, if it is possible for such an individual right to have been acquired, can the conclusion reached at the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2001, to the effect that support for early retirement from farming cannot be passed on to the heirs of the transferor of a farm, be regarded as a ground for the early termination of the acquired individual right referred to above? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, that is, if it is possible for such an individual right to have been acquired, can the conclusion reached at the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2001, to the effect that support for early retirement from farming cannot be passed on to the heirs of the transferor of a farm, be regarded as a ground for the early termination of the acquired individual right referred to above?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

(Case C-131/17)

(2017/C 168/32)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hélder José Cunha Martins, [the party against whom enforcement is sought]

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, [the party seeking enforcement]

Questions referred

| 1. | In the context of an action for damages arising from a road-traffic accident, must a finding of joint and several liability on appeal by a higher court, without recourse being had to the principle of the immediacy of evidence and without all the grounds of defence being available, be considered to have been made in a fair and equitable hearing, as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of an action for damages arising from a road-traffic accident, must a finding of joint and several liability on appeal by a higher court, without recourse being had to the principle of the immediacy of evidence and without all the grounds of defence being available, be considered to have been made in a fair and equitable hearing, as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 2. | Is the attachment of goods in enforcement proceedings, without the action for recovery having been heard beforehand, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the attachment of goods in enforcement proceedings, without the action for recovery having been heard beforehand, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 15 March 2017 — G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D. v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

(Case C-136/17)

(2017/C 168/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G.C., A.F., B.H., E.D.

Defendant: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to the specific responsibilities, powers and capabilities of the operator of a search engine, does the prohibition imposed on other controllers of processing data caught by Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46, (1) subject to the exceptions laid down there, also apply to this operator as the controller of processing by means of that search engine? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to the specific responsibilities, powers and capabilities of the operator of a search engine, does the prohibition imposed on other controllers of processing data caught by Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46, (1) subject to the exceptions laid down there, also apply to this operator as the controller of processing by means of that search engine?

| 2. | If Question 1 should be answered in the affirmative:






  — | Must Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition so imposed on the operator of a search engine of processing data covered by those provisions, subject to the exceptions laid down by that directive, would require the operator to grant as a matter of course the requests for ‘de-referencing’ in relation to links to web pages concerning such data? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 should be answered in the affirmative:

—

Must Article 8(1) and (5) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition so imposed on the operator of a search engine of processing data covered by those provisions, subject to the exceptions laid down by that directive, would require the operator to grant as a matter of course the requests for ‘de-referencing’ in relation to links to web pages concerning such data?

| — | From that perspective, how must the exceptions laid down in Article 8(2)(a) and (e) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted, when they apply to the operator of a search engine, in the light of its specific responsibilities, powers and capabilities? In particular, may such an operator refuse a request for ‘de-referencing’, if it establishes that the links at issue lead to content which, although comprising data falling within the categories listed in Article 8(1), is also covered by the exceptions laid down by Article 8(2)(a) and (e) of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

—

From that perspective, how must the exceptions laid down in Article 8(2)(a) and (e) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted, when they apply to the operator of a search engine, in the light of its specific responsibilities, powers and capabilities? In particular, may such an operator refuse a request for ‘de-referencing’, if it establishes that the links at issue lead to content which, although comprising data falling within the categories listed in Article 8(1), is also covered by the exceptions laid down by Article 8(2)(a) and (e) of the directive?

| — | Similarly, when the links subject to the request for ‘de-referencing’ lead to processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or for those of artistic or literary expression, on which basis, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 95/46, data within the categories mentioned in Article 8(1) and (5) of the directive may be collected and processed, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as allowing the operator of a search engine, on that ground, to refuse a request for ‘de-referencing’? |
| --- | --- |

—

Similarly, when the links subject to the request for ‘de-referencing’ lead to processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or for those of artistic or literary expression, on which basis, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 95/46, data within the categories mentioned in Article 8(1) and (5) of the directive may be collected and processed, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as allowing the operator of a search engine, on that ground, to refuse a request for ‘de-referencing’?

| 3. | If Question 1 should be answered in the negative:






  — | Which specific requirements of Directive 95/46 must be met by the operator of a search engine, in view of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 should be answered in the negative:

—

Which specific requirements of Directive 95/46 must be met by the operator of a search engine, in view of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities?

| — | When the operator establishes that the web pages at the end of the links subject to the request for ‘de-referencing’ comprise data whose publication on those pages is unlawful, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as:






  — | requiring the operator of a search engine to remove those links from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of the name of the person making the request; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

When the operator establishes that the web pages at the end of the links subject to the request for ‘de-referencing’ comprise data whose publication on those pages is unlawful, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as:

—

requiring the operator of a search engine to remove those links from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of the name of the person making the request; or

| — | meaning only that it is to take that factor into consideration in assessing the merits of the request for ‘de-referencing’, or |
| --- | --- |

—

meaning only that it is to take that factor into consideration in assessing the merits of the request for ‘de-referencing’, or

| — | meaning that this factor has no bearing on the assessment it is to make? |
| --- | --- |

—

meaning that this factor has no bearing on the assessment it is to make?

Furthermore, if that factor is not irrelevant, how is the lawfulness of the publication on web pages of the data at issue which stem from processing falling outside the territorial scope of Directive 95/46 and, accordingly, of the national laws implementing it to be assessed?

| 4. | Irrespective of the answer to be given to Question 1:






  — | whether or not publication of the personal data on the web page at the end of the link at issue is lawful, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as:






  — | requiring the operator of a search engine, when the person making the request establishes that the data in question has become incomplete or inaccurate, or is no longer up to date, to grant the corresponding request for ‘de-referencing’; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.

Irrespective of the answer to be given to Question 1:

—

whether or not publication of the personal data on the web page at the end of the link at issue is lawful, must the provisions of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as:

—

requiring the operator of a search engine, when the person making the request establishes that the data in question has become incomplete or inaccurate, or is no longer up to date, to grant the corresponding request for ‘de-referencing’;

| — | more specifically, requiring the operator of a search engine, when the person making the request shows that, having regard to the conduct of the legal proceedings, the information relating to an earlier stage of those proceedings is no longer consistent with the current reality of his situation, to ‘de-reference’ the links to web pages comprising such information? |
| --- | --- |

—

more specifically, requiring the operator of a search engine, when the person making the request shows that, having regard to the conduct of the legal proceedings, the information relating to an earlier stage of those proceedings is no longer consistent with the current reality of his situation, to ‘de-reference’ the links to web pages comprising such information?

| — | Must Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that information relating to the investigation of an individual or reporting a trial and the resulting conviction and sentencing constitutes data relating to offences and to criminal convictions? More generally, does a web page comprising data referring to the convictions of or legal proceedings involving a natural person fall within the ambit of those provisions? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must Article 8(5) of Directive 95/46 be interpreted as meaning that information relating to the investigation of an individual or reporting a trial and the resulting conviction and sentencing constitutes data relating to offences and to criminal convictions? More generally, does a web page comprising data referring to the convictions of or legal proceedings involving a natural person fall within the ambit of those provisions?

---

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-156/17)

(2017/C 168/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?

| 2. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands on the ground that it has not proved satisfactorily that its shareholders or participants satisfy the conditions laid down in Netherlands legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands on the ground that it has not proved satisfactorily that its shareholders or participants satisfy the conditions laid down in Netherlands legislation?

| 3. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, on the ground that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis at the latest in the eighth month following the end of the financial year, even if, in the country in which that investment fund is established, under the legislation there applicable, the proceeds of its investments, to the extent to which they are not distributed, (a) are deemed to have been distributed, and/or (b) are taken into account in the tax levied in that country on the shareholders or participants as though those profits had been distributed, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which it received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, on the ground that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis at the latest in the eighth month following the end of the financial year, even if, in the country in which that investment fund is established, under the legislation there applicable, the proceeds of its investments, to the extent to which they are not distributed, (a) are deemed to have been distributed, and/or (b) are taken into account in the tax levied in that country on the shareholders or participants as though those profits had been distributed, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-157/17)

(2017/C 168/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?

| 2. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax — which is, however, granted to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution — in case this might constitute a hindrance to that fund’s efforts to attract investors living or established in the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax — which is, however, granted to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution — in case this might constitute a hindrance to that fund’s efforts to attract investors living or established in the Netherlands?

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/27

---

Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-172/17 P)

(2017/C 168/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-768/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-768/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance.

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment in Case Τ-768/14 of the General Court of 25 January 2017 contains findings of law which are contrary to rules of EU law and challenges those findings by this appeal.

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

| i | First
  , on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time. |
| --- | --- |

i

First
  , on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time.

| ii | Second
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

ii

Second
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

| iii | Third
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

iii

Third
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof.

| iv | Fourth
  , on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due. |
| --- | --- |

iv

Fourth
  , on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/28

---

Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-771/14, ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-173/17 P)

(2017/C 168/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-771/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-771/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance.

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment in Case Τ-771/14 of the General Court of 25 January 2017 contains findings of law which are contrary to rules of EU law and challenges those findings by this appeal.

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

| i | First
  , on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time. |
| --- | --- |

i

First
  , on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time.

| ii | Second
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

ii

Second
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

| iii | Third
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

iii

Third
  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof.

| iv | Fourth
  , on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due. |
| --- | --- |

iv

Fourth
  , on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/29

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15, IMG v Commission

(Case C-184/17 P)

(2017/C 168/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: International Management Group (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

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 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15;

| — | Consequently, grant the appellant the benefit of its forms of order sought at first instance as reviewed, and therefore:






  — | annul the Commission’s decision of 8 May 2015 denying IMG the status of an international organisation under the Financial Regulation, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Consequently, grant the appellant the benefit of its forms of order sought at first instance as reviewed, and therefore:

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 8 May 2015 denying IMG the status of an international organisation under the Financial Regulation,

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material harm estimated at EUR 28 million and EUR 1 respectively, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material harm estimated at EUR 28 million and EUR 1 respectively,

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the two proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the two proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law, alleging:

| — | the first plea in law: infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, practical provisions for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and the rights of the defence; infringement of the defendant’s duty to state reasons; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons and the distortion of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

the first plea in law: infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, practical provisions for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and the rights of the defence; infringement of the defendant’s duty to state reasons; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons and the distortion of the case;

| — | the second plea in law: infringement of the 2012 Financial Regulation and the Delegated Financial Regulation, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

the second plea in law: infringement of the 2012 Financial Regulation and the Delegated Financial Regulation, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case;

| — | the third plea in law, infringement of the rights of the defence; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

the third plea in law, infringement of the rights of the defence; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case;

| — | the fourth plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fourth plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case;

| — | the fifth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legal certainty; infringement by the first court of its obligation to state reasons, and infringement of Article 61 of the 2012 Financial Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the fifth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legal certainty; infringement by the first court of its obligation to state reasons, and infringement of Article 61 of the 2012 Financial Regulation.

Furthermore, the appellant disputes the decision of the General Court to reject its claim for damages as there were no errors.

Finally, the appellant criticises the decision of the General Court to declare an opinion from the Commission’s Legal Service to be inadmissible and not to include it in the file.

---

General Court

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/30

---

Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Printeos v Commission

(Case T-201/17)

(2017/C 168/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU or, alternatively, the first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Commission to pay:






  (a) | financial compensation corresponding to the compensatory interest on the sum of EUR 4 729 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, for the period between 9 March 2015 and 1 February 2017, which results in an amount of EUR 184 592,95 or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU or, alternatively, the first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Commission to pay:

(a)

financial compensation corresponding to the compensatory interest on the sum of EUR 4 729 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, for the period between 9 March 2015 and 1 February 2017, which results in an amount of EUR 184 592,95 or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and

| (b) | default interest on the amount of compensatory interest under the preceding subparagraph (a) for the period between 1 February 2017 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph in compliance with a judgment upholding the present action, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

default interest on the amount of compensatory interest under the preceding subparagraph (a) for the period between 1 February 2017 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph in compliance with a judgment upholding the present action, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate;

| — | In the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 26 January 2017, consisting in the repayment to the applicant only of the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid by it in complying with the Envelopes decision excluding all interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 26 January 2017, consisting in the repayment to the applicant only of the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid by it in complying with the Envelopes decision excluding all interest;

| — | In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present proceedings, the applicant brings, principally, an action for damages seeking financial compensation equivalent to the interest which the Commission ought to have paid it when repaying it the principal amount of the fine wrongly paid in complying with Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) (‘the Envelopes decision’), after that decision was annulled by the judgment of the Court of 13 December 2016, in Case T-95/15 Printeos S.A. and Others v Commission (‘the Printeos judgment’). In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017, by which its claim for the abovementioned interest was dismissed.

| 1. | In support of its action for damages, the applicant submits that the claim for financial compensation is based on the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, since the Commission failed to implement the Printeos judgment in full, in not paying it the relevant interest, or, alternatively, on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for the damage caused by the Envelopes decision and the failure to implement the Printeos judgment in full.
  The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission’s unlawful conduct had no legal basis because Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1), relied upon by the Commission in its decision of 26 January 2017, had already been repealed, and because Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) must be considered contrary to Article 266 TFEU, Article 340 TFEU and Articles 41(3) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In support of its action for damages, the applicant submits that the claim for financial compensation is based on the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, since the Commission failed to implement the Printeos judgment in full, in not paying it the relevant interest, or, alternatively, on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for the damage caused by the Envelopes decision and the failure to implement the Printeos judgment in full.

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission’s unlawful conduct had no legal basis because Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1), relied upon by the Commission in its decision of 26 January 2017, had already been repealed, and because Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) must be considered contrary to Article 266 TFEU, Article 340 TFEU and Articles 41(3) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | In support of its alternative application, seeking annulment, the applicant submits that the legal basis on which the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017 is based had been repealed, was not applicable and, in any event, had to be considered unlawful, a plea of illegality also being raised in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In support of its alternative application, seeking annulment, the applicant submits that the legal basis on which the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2017 is based had been repealed, was not applicable and, in any event, had to be considered unlawful, a plea of illegality also being raised in that regard.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/31

---

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)

(Case T-207/17)

(2017/C 168/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the letters ‘hp’ — EU trade mark No 8 579 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 in Case R 1001/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/31

---

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)

(Case T-208/17)

(2017/C 168/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the letters ‘HP’ — EU trade mark No 52 449

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 in Case R 1002/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/32

---

Action brought on 4 April 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)

(Case T-209/17)

(2017/C 168/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ZGS Bildungs-GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: T. Remmerbach, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Schülerhilfe1’ — Application No 15 113 038

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 1789/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ZGS Bildungs-GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ZGS Bildungs-GmbH.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/33

---

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

(Case T-213/17)

(2017/C 168/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROMANTIK’ — EU trade mark No 2 527 109

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 in Case R 1257/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the declaration that EU trade mark No 2 527 109 ‘ROMANTIK’ (a word mark) is invalid is confirmed in that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the declaration that EU trade mark No 2 527 109 ‘ROMANTIK’ (a word mark) is invalid is confirmed in that decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) thereof;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(2) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(2) thereof.

---

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/33

---

Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR)

(Case T-215/17)

(2017/C 168/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pear Technologies Ltd (Macau, China) (represented by: J. Coldham, Solicitor and E. Himsworth, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘PEAR’ — Application for registration No 13 115 076

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 in Case R 860/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision; and/or

| — | remit the matter for further consideration by the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the matter for further consideration by the Board of Appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---