# Official Journal C 118/4 Ap

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 118 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 594 April 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 118

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 594 April 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 118/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 118/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2016/C 118/02 | Case C-396/15 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2015 in Case T-145/14: adidas AG/Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 2 |
| 2016/C 118/03 | Case C-652/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße | 2 |
| 2016/C 118/04 | Case C-655/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Panrico, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-534/13 Panrico v OHIM | 3 |
| 2016/C 118/05 | Case C-662/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH | 4 |
| 2016/C 118/06 | Case C-680/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja | 5 |
| 2016/C 118/07 | Case C-681/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf | 6 |
| 2016/C 118/08 | Case C-685/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich | 7 |
| 2016/C 118/09 | Case C-689/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse | 8 |
| 2016/C 118/10 | Case C-2/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R. | 8 |
| 2016/C 118/11 | Case C-7/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 6 January 2016 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L. v María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz | 9 |
| 2016/C 118/12 | Case C-20/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg | 10 |
| 2016/C 118/13 | Case C-21/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 11 |
| 2016/C 118/14 | Case C-22/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA | 11 |
| 2016/C 118/15 | Case C-42/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland | 12 |
| 2016/C 118/16 | Case C-58/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 13 |
| 2016/C 118/17 | Case C-66/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission | 14 |
| 2016/C 118/18 | Case C-67/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-465/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission | 15 |
| 2016/C 118/19 | Case C-68/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-487/13, Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. v Commission | 16 |
| 2016/C 118/20 | Case C-69/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Cellnex Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-541/13, Abertis Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I v Commission | 17 |
| 2016/C 118/21 | Case C-70/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission | 19 |
| 2016/C 118/22 | Case C-81/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission | 21 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 118/23 | Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer — Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession) | 23 |
| 2016/C 118/24 | Case T-210/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Mederer GmbH v OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark Gummi Bear-Rings — Earlier national figurative mark GUMMY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 23 |
| 2016/C 118/25 | Case T-240/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law) | 24 |
| 2016/C 118/26 | Case T-241/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Remuneration — Reform of the EIB rewards scheme — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law) | 25 |
| 2016/C 118/27 | Case T-402/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AQUALOGY — Earlier Community word mark AQUALIA and earlier national figurative mark aqualia — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2016/C 118/28 | Case T-411/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a contour bottle without fluting — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2016/C 118/29 | Case T-507/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff — Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession) | 27 |
| 2016/C 118/30 | Case T-543/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark HOT SOX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2016/C 118/31 | Joined Cases T-589/14 and T-772/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Musso v Parliament (Emoluments of Members of the Parliament — Old-age pension — Obligation for French Members to claim their pension rights from the national schemes — Rule against overlapping — Implementing measures for the Statute for Members — Decision adopted at the conclusion of the complaint procedure — Debit note — Decision to suspend payment of the pension — Adversarial principle — Reasonable period — Obligation to state reasons) | 28 |
| 2016/C 118/32 | Case T-692/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative mark representing an animal — Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 29 |
| 2016/C 118/33 | Case T-761/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark MANGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 30 |
| 2016/C 118/34 | Case T-816/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Misuse of power — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 30 |
| 2016/C 118/35 | Case T-279/13: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Ezz and Others v Counsel (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and against associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons targeted — Legal basis — Failure to fulfil the criteria for listing — Error of law — Error of fact — Right to property — Damage to reputation — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Amendment of the claims and pleas in law — Lis pendens — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 31 |
| 2016/C 118/36 | Case T-639/14: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2016 — DEI v Commission (State aid — Complaints — Rejection decisions — Commission’s preliminary assessment — Final decision — Repeal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate) | 32 |
| 2016/C 118/37 | Case T-34/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission | 32 |
| 2016/C 118/38 | Case T-38/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — EEB v Commission | 34 |
| 2016/C 118/39 | Case T-41/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission | 34 |
| 2016/C 118/40 | Case T-57/16: Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament) | 35 |
| 2016/C 118/41 | Case T-62/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA) | 36 |
| 2016/C 118/42 | Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB | 37 |
| 2016/C 118/43 | Case T-72/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile) | 37 |
| 2016/C 118/44 | Case T-73/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB | 38 |
| 2016/C 118/45 | Case T-75/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB | 39 |
| 2016/C 118/46 | Case T-76/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE) | 40 |
| 2016/C 118/47 | Case T-78/16: Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Sartour v Parliament | 40 |
| 2016/C 118/48 | Case T-79/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission | 41 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 118/49 | Case F-33/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC | 43 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 118/02

Case C-396/15 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2015 in Case T-145/14: adidas AG/Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

2

2016/C 118/03

Case C-652/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße

2

2016/C 118/04

Case C-655/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Panrico, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-534/13 Panrico v OHIM

3

2016/C 118/05

Case C-662/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

4

2016/C 118/06

Case C-680/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja

5

2016/C 118/07

Case C-681/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf

6

2016/C 118/08

Case C-685/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

7

2016/C 118/09

Case C-689/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

8

2016/C 118/10

Case C-2/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.

8

2016/C 118/11

Case C-7/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 6 January 2016 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L. v María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz

9

2016/C 118/12

Case C-20/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg

10

2016/C 118/13

Case C-21/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

11

2016/C 118/14

Case C-22/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA

11

2016/C 118/15

Case C-42/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

12

2016/C 118/16

Case C-58/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

13

2016/C 118/17

Case C-66/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi

Commission

14

2016/C 118/18

Case C-67/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-465/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

15

2016/C 118/19

Case C-68/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-487/13, Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. v Commission

Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A.

Commission

16

2016/C 118/20

Case C-69/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Cellnex Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-541/13, Abertis Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I v Commission

Abertis Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I

Commission

17

2016/C 118/21

Case C-70/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission

19

2016/C 118/22

Case C-81/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission

21

General Court

2016/C 118/23

Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer — Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession)

23

2016/C 118/24

Case T-210/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Mederer GmbH v OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark Gummi Bear-Rings — Earlier national figurative mark GUMMY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

23

2016/C 118/25

Case T-240/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law)

24

2016/C 118/26

Case T-241/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Remuneration — Reform of the EIB rewards scheme — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion — Errors of law)

25

2016/C 118/27

Case T-402/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AQUALOGY — Earlier Community word mark AQUALIA and earlier national figurative mark aqualia — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

25

2016/C 118/28

Case T-411/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a contour bottle without fluting — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

26

2016/C 118/29

Case T-507/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff — Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession)

27

2016/C 118/30

Case T-543/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark HOT SOX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

27

2016/C 118/31

Joined Cases T-589/14 and T-772/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Musso v Parliament (Emoluments of Members of the Parliament — Old-age pension — Obligation for French Members to claim their pension rights from the national schemes — Rule against overlapping — Implementing measures for the Statute for Members — Decision adopted at the conclusion of the complaint procedure — Debit note — Decision to suspend payment of the pension — Adversarial principle — Reasonable period — Obligation to state reasons)

Musso

Parliament

28

2016/C 118/32

Case T-692/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative mark representing an animal — Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

29

2016/C 118/33

Case T-761/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark MANGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Consolidated Artists

OHIM

Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

30

2016/C 118/34

Case T-816/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Misuse of power — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)

30

2016/C 118/35

Case T-279/13: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Ezz and Others v Counsel (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and against associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons targeted — Legal basis — Failure to fulfil the criteria for listing — Error of law — Error of fact — Right to property — Damage to reputation — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Amendment of the claims and pleas in law — Lis pendens — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

31

2016/C 118/36

Case T-639/14: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2016 — DEI v Commission (State aid — Complaints — Rejection decisions — Commission’s preliminary assessment — Final decision — Repeal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate)

32

2016/C 118/37

Case T-34/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

Republic of Lithuania

Commission

32

2016/C 118/38

Case T-38/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — EEB v Commission

34

2016/C 118/39

Case T-41/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission

34

2016/C 118/40

Case T-57/16: Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament)

35

2016/C 118/41

Case T-62/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)

36

2016/C 118/42

Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB

37

2016/C 118/43

Case T-72/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

37

2016/C 118/44

Case T-73/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB

38

2016/C 118/45

Case T-75/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB

39

2016/C 118/46

Case T-76/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

40

2016/C 118/47

Case T-78/16: Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Sartour v Parliament

40

2016/C 118/48

Case T-79/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission

41

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 118/49

Case F-33/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC

43

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/1

---

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

(2016/C 118/01)

Last publication

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016

Past publications

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016

OJ C 98, 14.3.2016

OJ C 90, 7.3.2016

OJ C 78, 29.2.2016

OJ C 68, 22.2.2016

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/2

---

Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2015 in Case T-145/14: adidas AG/Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-396/15 P)

(2016/C 118/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: adidas AG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

By order of 17 February 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße

(Case C-652/15)

(2016/C 118/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir

Defendant: Kreis Bergstraße

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the aim of efficient management of migration flows constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of denying exemption for a Turkish national born in federal territory from the requirement for a residence permit which he could claim by virtue of the standstill clause of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the aim of efficient management of migration flows constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of denying exemption for a Turkish national born in federal territory from the requirement for a residence permit which he could claim by virtue of the standstill clause of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association?

| 2. | If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the above question in the affirmative: What are the qualitative requirements for the existence of an ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ in relation to the aim of efficient management of migration flows? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the above question in the affirmative: What are the qualitative requirements for the existence of an ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ in relation to the aim of efficient management of migration flows?

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/3

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Panrico, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-534/13 Panrico v OHIM

(Case C-655/15 P)

(2016/C 118/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Panrico, S.A. (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and HDN Development Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in full, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015, in Case T-534/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in full, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015, in Case T-534/14;

| — | uphold the claim made before the General Court for the revocation or annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013, in Case R623/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the claim made before the General Court for the revocation or annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013, in Case R623/2011-4;

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

—

order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on the following grounds alleging the infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and the case-law interpreting those provisions:

First ground of appeal alleging an error of law in identifying the dominant element of the signs at issue, and comparing those signs, without taking into account the relevant market context and the perspective of the relevant public on the degree of distinctiveness of those signs and/or of the elements of which those signs are composed

In order to analyse properly — that is to say, in accordance with logic and law — the similarity of the signs compared, it is indispensable to first contextualise that analysis by placing it in the relevant market, so as to adopt the perspective of the average consumer in the specific relevant territory. According to the appeal, the judgment under appeal, far from adopting a contextualised perspective, failed to take into account: (i) The acknowledged maximal degree of distinctiveness of the element DONUT (or DOUGHNUTS in its phonetic form) in the relevant territory, and (ii) the dominant character which the average consumer in the relevant territory will inevitably assign to the element DOUGHNUTS (or DONUTS) when it appears integrated in any composite mark, such as the mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’.

Second ground of appeal, linked to the first, alleging that the General Court did not properly consider the well-known (and reputed) character of the earlier marks of PANRICO, S.A.

The judgment under appeal did not taken into account, in all respects, the importance of the well-known and reputed character of the earlier marks in evaluating the likelihood of confusion. That is particularly relevant since it is settled case-law that the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion, particularly as regards marks with a reputation.

Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the judgment under appeal disregarded the criteria developed by the case-law on the evaluation of the likelihood of confusion, including that of association

In particular:

| — | the erroneous assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue, by (i) failing to attribute to the element DOUGHNUTS the dominant character which it enjoys in conjunction with the mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’, and (ii) failing to assess correctly the similarity between the element ‘DOUGHNUTS’ and the earlier marks DONUT and/or DONUTS; |
| --- | --- |

—

the erroneous assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue, by (i) failing to attribute to the element DOUGHNUTS the dominant character which it enjoys in conjunction with the mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’, and (ii) failing to assess correctly the similarity between the element ‘DOUGHNUTS’ and the earlier marks DONUT and/or DONUTS;

| — | the erroneous assessment of the similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

the erroneous assessment of the similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks at issue.

Fourth ground of appeal alleging an error of law in that the General Court failed to find undue use of the distinctive character of the earlier marks DONUT and DONUTS, and a clear prejudice to those marks.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

(Case C-662/15)

(2016/C 118/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant and respondent: BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 1(2)(f), Article 11, point 13 of Annex I and the last indent of point 3 of Annex VII [to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a further conformity assessment procedure is required for the marketing of a Class I medical device, which has been made subject to a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer and lawfully bears the CE marking affixed by the manufacturer, where the information relating to the central pharmaceutical number (Pharmazentralnummer) on the outer packaging of the medical device has been concealed by a sticker which provides the importer’s details and the central pharmaceutical number granted to that importer, the other information remaining visible?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja

(Case C-680/15)

(2016/C 118/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH

Respondent: Ivan Felja

Questions referred

I.

| 1. | Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (1) preclude a provision of national law which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or business, all conditions of employment agreed between the transferor and the employee, individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract, in the contract of employment transfer to the transferee unaltered, as if he had himself agreed them in an individual contract with the employee, where national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (1) preclude a provision of national law which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or business, all conditions of employment agreed between the transferor and the employee, individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract, in the contract of employment transfer to the transferee unaltered, as if he had himself agreed them in an individual contract with the employee, where national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, either generally or for a defined group of individually agreed conditions of employment in the employment contract between the transferor and employee:
  Does the application of Article 3 of Directive 2001/23/EC have the effect that certain terms of the contract of employment between the transferor and the employee which have been agreed in the exercise of freedom of contract are to be excluded from being transferred unaltered to the transferee, and are to be adjusted simply by reason of the transfer of the undertaking or business? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, either generally or for a defined group of individually agreed conditions of employment in the employment contract between the transferor and employee:

Does the application of Article 3 of Directive 2001/23/EC have the effect that certain terms of the contract of employment between the transferor and the employee which have been agreed in the exercise of freedom of contract are to be excluded from being transferred unaltered to the transferee, and are to be adjusted simply by reason of the transfer of the undertaking or business?

| 3. | If, according to the Court of Justice’s answers to Questions 1 and 2, an individual provision which has been agreed in an individual contract, under which certain provisions in a collective agreement are, dynamically and in the exercise of freedom of contract, incorporated into the employment contract, is not transferred unaltered to the transferee:






  a) | Does this apply also where neither the transferor nor the transferee is party to a collective agreement or is affiliated to such a party, that is, where, even prior to the transfer of the undertaking or business, the provisions in the collective agreement would not have been applicable to the employment relationship with the transferor in the absence of the term referring to them in the agreement made, in the exercise of freedom of contract, in the contract of employment? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If, according to the Court of Justice’s answers to Questions 1 and 2, an individual provision which has been agreed in an individual contract, under which certain provisions in a collective agreement are, dynamically and in the exercise of freedom of contract, incorporated into the employment contract, is not transferred unaltered to the transferee:

a)

Does this apply also where neither the transferor nor the transferee is party to a collective agreement or is affiliated to such a party, that is, where, even prior to the transfer of the undertaking or business, the provisions in the collective agreement would not have been applicable to the employment relationship with the transferor in the absence of the term referring to them in the agreement made, in the exercise of freedom of contract, in the contract of employment?

| b) | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

b)

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

Does this apply also if the transferor and the transferee are undertakings within the same group?

II.

Does Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national provision enacted to implement Directive 77/187/EEC (2) or Directive 2001/23/EC which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or a business, the transferee is bound by the conditions of employment agreed individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract by the transferor with the employee as if he had agreed them himself, even if these conditions incorporate certain provisions of a collective agreement, which would not otherwise apply to the employment contract, into the employment contract dynamically, in so far as national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee?

---

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

(2)  Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 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 businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf

(Case C-681/15)

(2016/C 118/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Vittoria Graf

Questions referred

I.

| 1. | Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (1) preclude a provision of national law which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or business, all conditions of employment agreed between the transferor and the employee, individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract, in the contract of employment transfer to the transferee unaltered, as if he had himself agreed them in an individual contract with the employee, where national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (1) preclude a provision of national law which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or business, all conditions of employment agreed between the transferor and the employee, individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract, in the contract of employment transfer to the transferee unaltered, as if he had himself agreed them in an individual contract with the employee, where national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, either generally or for a defined group of individually agreed conditions of employment in the employment contract between the transferor and employee:
  Does the application of Article 3 of Directive 2001/23/EC have the effect that certain terms of the contract of employment between the transferor and the employee which have been agreed in the exercise of freedom of contract are to be excluded from being transferred unaltered to the transferee, and are to be adjusted simply by reason of the transfer of the undertaking or business? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, either generally or for a defined group of individually agreed conditions of employment in the employment contract between the transferor and employee:

Does the application of Article 3 of Directive 2001/23/EC have the effect that certain terms of the contract of employment between the transferor and the employee which have been agreed in the exercise of freedom of contract are to be excluded from being transferred unaltered to the transferee, and are to be adjusted simply by reason of the transfer of the undertaking or business?

| 3. | If, according to the Court of Justice’s answers to Questions 1 and 2, an individual provision which has been agreed in an individual contract, under which certain provisions in a collective agreement are, dynamically and in the exercise of freedom of contract, incorporated into the employment contract, is not transferred unaltered to the transferee:






  a) | Does this apply also where neither the transferor nor the transferee is party to a collective agreement or is affiliated to such a party, that is, where, even prior to the transfer of the undertaking or business, the provisions in the collective agreement would not have been applicable to the employment relationship with the transferor in the absence of the term referring to them in the agreement made, in the exercise of freedom of contract, in the contract of employment? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If, according to the Court of Justice’s answers to Questions 1 and 2, an individual provision which has been agreed in an individual contract, under which certain provisions in a collective agreement are, dynamically and in the exercise of freedom of contract, incorporated into the employment contract, is not transferred unaltered to the transferee:

a)

Does this apply also where neither the transferor nor the transferee is party to a collective agreement or is affiliated to such a party, that is, where, even prior to the transfer of the undertaking or business, the provisions in the collective agreement would not have been applicable to the employment relationship with the transferor in the absence of the term referring to them in the agreement made, in the exercise of freedom of contract, in the contract of employment?

| b) | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
  Does this apply also if the transferor and the transferee are undertakings within the same group? |
| --- | --- |

b)

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

Does this apply also if the transferor and the transferee are undertakings within the same group?

II.

Does Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national provision enacted to implement Directive 77/187/EEC (2) or Directive 2001/23/EC which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or a business, the transferee is bound by the conditions of employment agreed individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract by the transferor with the employee as if he had agreed them himself, even if these conditions incorporate certain provisions of a collective agreement, which would not otherwise apply to the employment contract, into the employment contract dynamically, in so far as national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee?

---

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

(2)  Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 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 businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

(Case C-685/15)

(2016/C 118/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Online Games Handels GmbH, Frank Breuer, Nicole Enter, Astrid Walden

Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

Question referred

Is Article 56 TFEU or Article 49 et seq. TFEU, in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted, having regard to the judicial objectivity and impartiality required by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (in particular with regard to its judgment of 18 May 2010, Application No 64962/01, paragraph 54), as precluding, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in particular its judgment of 30 April 2014, C-390/12, (1) a national rule according to which, in the case of administrative offence proceedings, it is not for the State prosecution services (or other State prosecution bodies) in their function of representing the prosecution but rather for the court called upon to rule on the legality of the criminal measure against which an action has been brought, of its own motion and independently of the conduct of the parties to the proceedings, (in one and the same person/function) to state and delimit wholly independently the evidence justifying the criminal law protection of the quasi-monopoly regulation of the national gambling market and then autonomously to investigate and evaluate it?

---

(1)  ECLI:EU:C:2014:281 Pfleger and Others.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

(Case C-689/15)

(2016/C 118/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze

Respondent: Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the use of an individual mark as a certification mark constitute, in relation to the goods for which it is used, use as a trade mark for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the use of an individual mark as a certification mark constitute, in relation to the goods for which it is used, use as a trade mark for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is such a mark to be declared invalid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, or to be revoked, in accordance with a mutatis mutandis application of Article 73(c) of that regulation, if the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure that expectations in trade relating to the quality associated with the sign are being met by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is such a mark to be declared invalid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, or to be revoked, in accordance with a mutatis mutandis application of Article 73(c) of that regulation, if the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure that expectations in trade relating to the quality associated with the sign are being met by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.

(Case C-2/16)

(2016/C 118/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Party to the main proceedings

J. S. R.

Question referred

Is the inclusion of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (‘the LTTE’) in the list pursuant to Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period of time from 23 July 2007 to 11 March 2009, in particular on the basis of Council Decisions of

| — | 29 March 2006 (2006/379/EC), (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

29 March 2006 (2006/379/EC), (2)

| — | 28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC), (3) |
| --- | --- |

—

28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC), (3)

| — | 20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC in the version of the correction from the same day published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 340 of 22 December 2007), (4) |
| --- | --- |

—

20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC in the version of the correction from the same day published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 340 of 22 December 2007), (4)

| — | 15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5) and |
| --- | --- |

—

15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5) and

| — | 26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6)

  invalid? |
| --- | --- |

—

26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6)

invalid?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2)  Council Decision of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).

(3)  Council Decision of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58).

(4)  Council Decision of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), as corrected.

(5)  Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

(6)  Council Decision of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2008/583/EC (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 6 January 2016 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L. v María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz

(Case C-7/16)

(2016/C 118/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L.

Defendants: María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) as precluding judicial interpretation of a legislative provision of a Member State, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which limits its application to the declaratory stage of proceedings until such time as judgment is given, thereby precluding its application during the enforcement stage once judgment has been given or the period for contesting the claim for payment has expired, when full payment of the debt has not been made to the creditor in the meantime? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) as precluding judicial interpretation of a legislative provision of a Member State, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which limits its application to the declaratory stage of proceedings until such time as judgment is given, thereby precluding its application during the enforcement stage once judgment has been given or the period for contesting the claim for payment has expired, when full payment of the debt has not been made to the creditor in the meantime?

| 2. | Do the provisions of EU law cited in the first question preclude a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which permits the assignment to a third party of a disputed debt contracted between an economic operator, on the one hand, and a consumer, on the other, without requiring authentic notification to the consumer of the very fact of the assignment, the instrument of assignment or its raison d’être, and without its being necessary to indicate, and substantiate by documentary evidence (in any case), the true price for which the debt was acquired, with a statement of the reduction or discount given? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the provisions of EU law cited in the first question preclude a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which permits the assignment to a third party of a disputed debt contracted between an economic operator, on the one hand, and a consumer, on the other, without requiring authentic notification to the consumer of the very fact of the assignment, the instrument of assignment or its raison d’être, and without its being necessary to indicate, and substantiate by documentary evidence (in any case), the true price for which the debt was acquired, with a statement of the reduction or discount given?

| 3. | Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 March 1978 in Case [106/77] Simmenthal
   (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to attain the objective of Directive 93/13/EEC, cited in the first question referred, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a national court must not apply a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which precludes the exercise of the right to extinguish disputed debts in the same proceedings as those for enforcement of the debt assigned, thereby imposing on the consumer the burden of commencing fresh declaratory proceedings, within the limitation period of nine days from notification of the assignment, together with the costs which that entails (lawyer, court agent, legal fees, determination of the court having jurisdiction when the assignee is not domiciled in Spain ...), against the new holder of the debt assigned in order to extinguish that debt? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 March 1978 in Case [106/77] Simmenthal
   (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to attain the objective of Directive 93/13/EEC, cited in the first question referred, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a national court must not apply a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which precludes the exercise of the right to extinguish disputed debts in the same proceedings as those for enforcement of the debt assigned, thereby imposing on the consumer the burden of commencing fresh declaratory proceedings, within the limitation period of nine days from notification of the assignment, together with the costs which that entails (lawyer, court agent, legal fees, determination of the court having jurisdiction when the assignee is not domiciled in Spain ...), against the new holder of the debt assigned in order to extinguish that debt?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

(3)  EU:C:1978:49.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg

(Case C-20/16)

(2016/C 118/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) preclude a provision of German law according to which contributions to the French pension and health insurance fund paid by an employee living in Germany but working for the French civil service — in contrast to comparable contributions paid by an employee working in Germany to the German social security fund — do not reduce the income tax basis of assessment, if, under the Convention between Germany and France for the avoidance of double taxation, the salary may not be taxed in Germany and only increases the tax rate to be applied to other income? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) preclude a provision of German law according to which contributions to the French pension and health insurance fund paid by an employee living in Germany but working for the French civil service — in contrast to comparable contributions paid by an employee working in Germany to the German social security fund — do not reduce the income tax basis of assessment, if, under the Convention between Germany and France for the avoidance of double taxation, the salary may not be taxed in Germany and only increases the tax rate to be applied to other income?

| 2. | Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative even if, within the framework of the taxation of the salary by France, the insurance contributions in question — whether specifically or at a flat rate —






  a) | are taken into account as reducing tax, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative even if, within the framework of the taxation of the salary by France, the insurance contributions in question — whether specifically or at a flat rate —

a)

are taken into account as reducing tax, or

| b) | could have been taken into account in reducing tax, but were not the subject of a claim to that effect and therefore were not actually taken into account? |
| --- | --- |

b)

could have been taken into account in reducing tax, but were not the subject of a claim to that effect and therefore were not actually taken into account?

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-21/16)

(2016/C 118/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 131 and 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted, in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods, as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to grant VAT exemption to a seller domiciled in that Member State on the ground that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, is not registered in the VIES (2) database nor is subject in that country to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, although he has, at the time of the transactions, a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, which has been used in the transaction invoices, and the cumulative material conditions for an intra-Community supply have been fulfilled, namely, that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the purchaser and the seller has established that these goods were dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, after that dispatch or transport, those goods physically left the Member State of departure and were delivered to a taxable purchaser or legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 131 and 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted, in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods, as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to grant VAT exemption to a seller domiciled in that Member State on the ground that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, is not registered in the VIES (2) database nor is subject in that country to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, although he has, at the time of the transactions, a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, which has been used in the transaction invoices, and the cumulative material conditions for an intra-Community supply have been fulfilled, namely, that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the purchaser and the seller has established that these goods were dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, after that dispatch or transport, those goods physically left the Member State of departure and were delivered to a taxable purchaser or legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began?

| 2. | Does the principle of proportionality preclude an interpretation of Article 138(1) of Directive No 2006/112/EC to the effect that the benefit of the right to VAT exemption is to be denied in a situation where a seller, domiciled in a Member State, was aware that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, although holding a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, was not registered in the VIES database nor was subject to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, but was convinced that that purchaser would be retroactively registered as an intra-Community operator? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle of proportionality preclude an interpretation of Article 138(1) of Directive No 2006/112/EC to the effect that the benefit of the right to VAT exemption is to be denied in a situation where a seller, domiciled in a Member State, was aware that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, although holding a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, was not registered in the VIES database nor was subject to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, but was convinced that that purchaser would be retroactively registered as an intra-Community operator?

---

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

(2)  VAT Information Exchange System.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA

(Case C-22/16)

(2016/C 118/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendant: SC Hidroelectrica SA

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, is the holding by a Romanian publicly-funded company of shares in a joint (Romanian-Turkish) company equivalent to State aid subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU?
  Does it constitute public funding selective in nature, and could it have an effect on trade between Member States of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, is the holding by a Romanian publicly-funded company of shares in a joint (Romanian-Turkish) company equivalent to State aid subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU?

Does it constitute public funding selective in nature, and could it have an effect on trade between Member States of the European Union?

| 2. | Can it be held that such a shareholding by a publicly-owned electricity-producing company infringes the principle of separating transmission systems from transmission system operators established by Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) concerning rules adopted for the internal market in electricity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it be held that such a shareholding by a publicly-owned electricity-producing company infringes the principle of separating transmission systems from transmission system operators established by Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) concerning rules adopted for the internal market in electricity?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/12

---

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-42/16)

(2016/C 118/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by issuing duplicate driving licences whose administrative validity period expires on 18 January 2033, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 7(2) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) and that, by failing to join the EU driving licence network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by issuing duplicate driving licences whose administrative validity period expires on 18 January 2033, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 7(2) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) and that, by failing to join the EU driving licence network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC;

| — | order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

One of the main aims of Directive 2006/126/EC is to raise the level of protection of driving licences. By applying the time limits under the directive, that aim may be realised and the latest methods made use of when issuing driving licences for preventing fraud and achieving the traffic safety objectives of the directive. Article 1 of Directive 2006/126/EC requires the introduction of a national driving licence based on the Community model in Annex I. Article 7(1) of the directive lays down requirements for driving licences and Article 7(2) defines the administrative validity of driving licences issued as from 19 February 2013. The administrative validity period of duplicate driving licences issued in Finland after 19 January 2013 can be much longer than is permitted by Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/126/EC.

In accordance with Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC, the Member States are to use the EU driving licence network once the network is brought into operation. The EU driving licence network (RESPER) has been set up and it became operational on 19 January 2013. Since Finland has not joined the EU driving licence network (RESPER), it is not possible to ascertain in the network whether the conditions for issuing a driving licence are satisfied. The other Member States cannot check together with Finland the fulfilment of the conditions for issuing a driving licence, and cannot exchange information with Finland through the network. The exchange of information in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2006/126/EC is thus not possible with Finland by using the EU driving licence network.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/13

---

Action brought on 1 February 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-58/16)

(2016/C 118/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure that, for all ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen, the boundaries of each port are defined, that port security assessments and port security plans are established 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 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure that, for all ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen, the boundaries of each port are defined, that port security assessments and port security plans are established 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 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 2005/65/EC, Member States are required to ensure that a port security assessment is carried out for each of the ports covered by that directive and that it is approved by the Member State concerned. Pursuant to Annex I to that directive, such port security assessments must include all areas that are relevant to port security, including the port boundaries.

Pursuant to Article 2(3), Member States are required to define the boundaries for each port, taking into account, as appropriate, information resulting from the port security assessment. Article 2(4) deal with the case in which the boundaries of a port facility within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 (2) effectively cover the port.

The inspection carried out in 2013 revealed that, for at least eleven of the ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by Directive 2005/65/EC, no security assessment had been carried out. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.

At least as far as those ports are concerned, the boundaries of the port facilities have also not been defined, since the definition of those boundaries is in turn based on the security assessments, as mentioned above.

It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Articles 2(3) and 6 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2005/65/EC, Member States are required to ensure that a port security plan is established for each port covered by the directive and that it is approved by the Member State concerned.

In their letter of 21 August 2013, the German authorities acknowledged that, with regard to eleven of the ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by the directive, port security plans were lacking. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.

It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Article 7 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

Pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC, a port security officer must be approved for each port covered by that directive.

In their letter of 21 August 2013, the German authorities acknowledged that, with regard to several ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by the directive, no port security officers had been approved. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.

It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Article 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 129, p. 6.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/14

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

(Case C-66/16 P)

(2016/C 118/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi, S.A. (represented by: J. L Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

Forms of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to several means adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) and of Protocol (26) TFEU on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

In particular, the action emphasises that the Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

| — | it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI; |
| --- | --- |

—

it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

| — | it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document; |
| --- | --- |

—

it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

| — | its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed; |
| --- | --- |

—

its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and ‘entrusting’ of it do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and ‘entrusting’ of it do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

| — | it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/15

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-465/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

(Case C-67/16 P)

(2016/C 118/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

Forms of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to several measures adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU, Protocol (No 26) on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

In particular, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

| — | it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI; |
| --- | --- |

—

it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

| — | it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document; |
| --- | --- |

—

it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

| — | its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed; |
| --- | --- |

—

its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

| — | it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/16

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-487/13, Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. v Commission

(Case C-68/16 P)

(2016/C 118/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías, S.A. (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to various measures adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU and of Protocol (No 26) TFEU on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

In particular, the action emphasises that the General Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

| — | it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI; |
| --- | --- |

—

it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

| — | it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document; |
| --- | --- |

—

it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

| — | its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed; |
| --- | --- |

—

its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

| — | it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/17

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Cellnex Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-541/13, Abertis Telecom S.A. and Retevisión I v Commission

(Case C-69/16 P)

(2016/C 118/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Cellnex Telecom S.A., formerly Abertis Telecom S.A., and Retevisión I, S.A. (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

Forms of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to various measures adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU and of Protocol (No 26) TFEU on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

In particular, the action emphasises that the General Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

| — | it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI; |
| --- | --- |

—

it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

| — | it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document; |
| --- | --- |

—

it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

| — | its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed; |
| --- | --- |

—

its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

| — | it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis; |
| --- | --- |

—

it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

| — | it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/19

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases T-463/13 and T-464/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission

(Case C-70/16 P)

(2016/C 118/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, S.A. (Retegal) (represented by: F. J. García Martínez and B. Pérez Conde, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible and well-founded the grounds relied on in the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible and well-founded the grounds relied on in the appeal;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, delivered in joined cases T-463/13 and T-464/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, delivered in joined cases T-463/13 and T-464/13;

| — | give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment, by upholding the claims made by the applicant at first instance against the contested Commission Decision (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); |
| --- | --- |

—

give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment, by upholding the claims made by the applicant at first instance against the contested Commission Decision (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: Error of law consisting in the lack of consistency of the operative part of the judgment under appeal in view of the finding of errors in the contested decision, pointed out in the fourth plea in law of the application, in that it expressly characterised Retegal as the direct beneficiary of unlawful State aid and quantified the amount to be recovered

By this ground of appeal, the appellants emphasise the clear inconsistency in the judgment under appeal, the operative part of which did not reflect the errors found in the contested decision (recitals 193 and 194 of the decision) relating to the specific situation of Galicia, consisting in the express characterisation of Retegal as the direct beneficiary of an unlawful State aid and the quantification of the amount to be recovered. Although the judgment under appeal (in paragraph 153) annuls the legally binding nature of that erroneous characterisation in the contested decision of Retegal as a direct beneficiary of the aid (in recital 193) and the erroneous quantification of the amount (in recital 194) to be recovered (in the operative part), a finding which the applicants support, the General Court does not repeat that express finding in the operative part, whereas the action sought the annulment of those erroneous determinations in the contested decision, which were correctly and specifically declared legally non-binding. Accordingly, for the purpose of internal consistency between the grounds of the judgment and the operative part, it is necessary to partially uphold the action, for logical reasons of legal certainty (in order to avoid subsequent conflicts concerning the interpretation of the scope of the contested decision at the recovery stage, as in the present case).

Second ground of appeal: Error of law relating to the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the judgment under appeal found that the requirements for the qualification of the activity in question as State aid were met

By this ground of appeal, the parties seek the annulment of the judgment under appeal on the ground that the General Court erred in law by carrying out a review which did not comply with the criteria established by the case-law when verifying whether all the requirements for characterising the action of the Galician public authorities at issue as aid for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU were met. Despite the fact that the Commission acknowledged in the course of the proceedings that it did not have sufficient, reliable and comprehensive information in respect of the specific situation of Galicia, thus confirming the error of assessment criticised by the applicant at first instance, the judgment under appeal erroneously considered that the action of the Galician public authorities was not linked to the exercise of public power (public action necessary in view of the market failure in Zone II, in order to ensure that citizens could continue to receive the television signal after the abandonment of analogue television) but rather had an economic character. The General Court arrived at that conclusion because it failed to verify the substantive accuracy of the circumstances relied on by the Commission, in particular as regards the fact that the digital network of the municipal councils was not capable of commercial use, which is still the case. The General Court also committed an error when it confirmed the Commission’s presumption that it was possible to ‘provide other services’ distinct from the ‘DTT support services’ via the support infrastructure belonging to the municipal council, despite the fact that such commercial use is substantively and legally impossible.

If a full review had been carried out of the specific elements of the case, in the manner required by the case-law invoked, the General Court would not have arrived at such a conclusion, since the infrastructure digitalised by the actions of the Galician public authorities in question could not be commercially exploited, as a result of its technical characteristics (a pylon and a hut), the level of equipment (TNT equipment only), and the applicable legal scheme (national legislation which only allows the national authorities to provide the service of transmitting the digital terrestrial television signal without remuneration), with the result that it cannot be considered that the measure falls within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Third ground of appeal: Error of law consisting in the breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court) and of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the General Court erred in its assessment of the selective character of the aid

By this ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal (paragraph 85) is vitiated, as regards the selective character attributed to the measure in question, by the same failure to state reasons and error of assessment as the contested decision (recital 113), in that, without analysing or dealing with the failure to state reasons and the error of assessment alleged in the application, the General Court merely confirmed — without expressing clearly and unambiguously its reasoning — the Commission’s position on that issue, thus not only failing to fulfil the duty to state reasons for judgments, but also failing to carry out the analysis of comparability necessary in order to be able to assess whether or not the aid has a selective character. If the General Court had not failed to carry out that obligatory analysis, it would have found that the situation of the municipal councils in Zone II in Galicia and that of other ‘undertakings using other technologies’, such as the intervener, are in no way comparable from a factual or legal point of view, since those other ‘undertakings’ neither provide nor are obliged to provide (under the conditions laid down in the national legislation: ‘without remuneration’) the service of transmitting the digital terrestrial television signal to citizens residing in Zone II in Galicia.

Fourth ground of appeal: error of law in the interpretation of Articles 14 and 106(2) TFEU and Protocol (No 26) on Services of General Interest and the case-law interpreting them

This ground of appeal is divided into three complaints, alleging an infringement of Articles 14 and 106(2) TFEU and Protocol (No 26) and the case-law interpreting them, in that the General Court in its judgment incorrectly interpreted those provisions of the TFEU referring to the SGEI. By the first complaint, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal disregarded the Member States’ margin of discretion to define a SGEI, by carrying out an interpretation, applied to the present case, which ignores and renders meaningless that discretion. The official document empowering the public action in question contains a clear and precise definition of the public service mission, and meets all the requirements laid down by the case-law to be regarded as a valid SGEI. By the second complaint, the appellants submit that the General Court did not examine whether there was a manifest error in the definition of the public service and did not find that the definition given by the public authorities was manifestly erroneous, despite having found that the activity in question was clearly an activity that could be qualified as a SGEI from a substantive point of view. By the third complaint, the appellants submit that the General Court committed errors of law in the judgment under appeal by carrying out an erroneous interpretation of the national legislation as a result of which it did not consider that there was a clear and precise definition of the SGEI as required by the judgment in Altmark. (2)

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).

(2)  EU:C:2003:415

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/21

---

Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission

(Case C-81/16 P)

(2016/C 118/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission;

| — | Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10) (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10) (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law relating to the control of Member States regarding the definition and application of a service of general economic interest. As regards the first condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark, (2) the General Court refused to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant factors in assessing the definition of a public service. Likewise, the General Court failed to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant elements in order to assess whether the fourth condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark had been fulfilled. Accordingly, the General Court infringed the discretion allowing a Member State to organise its public service.

Error of law relating to judicial control of the compatibility of State aid. In the first place, the General Court failed to check the accuracy of the facts on which the Commission based its analysis. Accordingly, the judgment fails to review the reliability, consistency and relevance of the data used by the Commission. Finally, the General Court failed to check the validity of the Commission’s conclusions.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52.

(2)  EU:C:2003:415.

---

General Court

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer - Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))

(2016/C 118/23)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicants: Ante Šumelj (Zagreb, Croatia), Dubravka Bašljan (Zagreb), Đurđica Crnčević (Sv. Ivan Zeline, Croatia), Miroslav Lovreković (Križevaci, Croatia) (Case T-546/13); Drago Burazer (Zagreb), Nikolina Nežić (Zagreb), Blaženka Bošnjak (Sv. Ivan Zeline), Bosiljka Grbašić (Križevaci), Tea Tončić (Pula, Croatia), Milica Bjelić (Dubrovnik, Croatia), Marijana Kruhoberec (Varaždin, Croatia) (Case T-108/14); Davor Škugor (Sisak, Croatia), Ivan Gerometa (Vrsar, Croatia), Kristina Samardžić (Split, Croatia), Sandra Cindrić (Karlovac, Croatia), Sunčica Gložinić (Varaždin), Tomislav Polić (Kaštel Novi, Croatia) and Vlatka Pižeta (Varaždin) (Case T-109/14) (represented by: M. Krmek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Ćutuk and G. Wils and, in Cases T-546/13 and T-108/14, S. Ječmenica, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the failure by the Commission to take measures to ensure the Republic of Croatia’s compliance with its accession commitments.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ante Šumelj and the other applicants named in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ante Šumelj and the other applicants named in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Mederer GmbH v OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings)

(Case T-210/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark Gummi Bear-Rings - Earlier national figurative mark GUMMY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and O. Ruhl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December (Case R 225/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings B V and Mederer GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mederer GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mederer GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB

(Case T-240/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))

(2016/C 118/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-73/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:16) seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB

(Case T-241/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Remuneration - Reform of the EIB rewards scheme - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))

(2016/C 118/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-83/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:15) seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY)

(Case T-402/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AQUALOGY - Earlier Community word mark AQUALIA and earlier national figurative mark aqualia - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: FCC Aqualia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, N. González-Alberto Rodríguez and C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, C. Viola Zendrera and A. Torrente Tomás, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 1209/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and FCC Aqualia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FCC Aqualia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FCC Aqualia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting)

(Case T-411/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a contour bottle without fluting - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 540/2013-2), concerning proceedings for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission

(Case T-507/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff - Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))

(2016/C 118/29)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicants: Vedran Vidmar (Zagreb, Croatia) and the 21 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment (represented by: D. Graf, lawyer), and Darko Graf (Zagreb) (represented initially by D Graf and subsequently by L. Duvnjak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Commission while monitoring the fulfilment of accession commitments by the Republic of Croatia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)

(Case T-543/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark HOT SOX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: C. Schenk, M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2014 (Case R 1859/2013-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between provima Warenhandels GmbH and Renfro Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders provima Warenhandels GmbH to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders provima Warenhandels GmbH to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Musso v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-589/14 and T-772/14) (1)

((Emoluments of Members of the Parliament - Old-age pension - Obligation for French Members to claim their pension rights from the national schemes - Rule against overlapping - Implementing measures for the Statute for Members - Decision adopted at the conclusion of the complaint procedure - Debit note - Decision to suspend payment of the pension - Adversarial principle - Reasonable period - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 118/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: François Musso (Ajaccio, France) (represented by: A. Gross and L. Stachnik, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 26 June 2014 confirming the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 October 2011 which determined the monthly amount of pension rights, taking into account the sums received from two French pension schemes, and by which recovery of EUR 127 065,19 was determined and, second, application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 22 September 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr François Musso to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr François Musso to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 351 of 6.10.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal)

(Case T-692/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative mark representing an animal - Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Rasiewicz and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma SE and Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013—5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013—5);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

| 3. | Orders Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

(Case T-761/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark MANGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Consolidated Artists BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Corne, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Body Cosmetics International GmbH (Willich, Germany) (represented by: M. Müller-Mergenthaler, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2337/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Body Cosmetics International GmbH and Consolidated Artists BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Consolidated Artists BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Consolidated Artists BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case T-816/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED - Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Misuse of power - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 (Case R 842/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto Group Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/31

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Ezz and Others v Counsel

(Case T-279/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and against associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons targeted - Legal basis - Failure to fulfil the criteria for listing - Error of law - Error of fact - Right to property - Damage to reputation - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Amendment of the claims and pleas in law - Lis pendens - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 118/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza) and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented by: J. Binns, Solicitor, J. Lewis, QC, B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers, S. Rowe and J.-F. Bellis, lawyers)

Defendant: Counsel of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63), as amended by Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011‘renewed by decision of the Council notified to the applicants by letter dated 22 March 2013’ concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar shall bear their own costs and, in addition, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar shall bear their own costs and, in addition, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2016 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-639/14) (1)

((State aid - Complaints - Rejection decisions - Commission’s preliminary assessment - Final decision - Repeal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 118/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Oikonomou, C. Synodinos and E. Salaka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission letter COMP/E3/ON/AB/ark*2014/61460 of 21 June 2014 in which the Commission rejected the applicant’s complaints concerning State aid.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene made by Alouminion tis Ellados AE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene made by Alouminion tis Ellados AE.

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

---

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-34/16)

(2016/C 118/37)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and T. Orlickas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) in so far as that decision provides for a financial correction of EUR 1 113 589,65 to be applied to Lithuania; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) in so far as that decision provides for a financial correction of EUR 1 113 589,65 to be applied to Lithuania;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, applied in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:






  — | failed to take into account the fact that the specific and precise damage caused to the European Union was established by reason of the first and fourth infringements found by the Commission; therefore, in regard to those infringements, the Commission ought to have established only a one-off financial correction and ought no longer to have taken account of those infringements in conjunction with other infringements when seeking to establish whether there was a significant risk of financial loss to the Fund; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, applied in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:

—

failed to take into account the fact that the specific and precise damage caused to the European Union was established by reason of the first and fourth infringements found by the Commission; therefore, in regard to those infringements, the Commission ought to have established only a one-off financial correction and ought no longer to have taken account of those infringements in conjunction with other infringements when seeking to establish whether there was a significant risk of financial loss to the Fund;

| — | unjustifiably broke down directly related infringements and thereby artificially created an allegedly significant risk of loss to the Fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

unjustifiably broke down directly related infringements and thereby artificially created an allegedly significant risk of loss to the Fund;

| — | incorrectly determined and incorrectly took into account, whilst assessing the other infringements found by it, the extent of the discrepancy, the nature of the infringements and the financial damage caused to the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrectly determined and incorrectly took into account, whilst assessing the other infringements found by it, the extent of the discrepancy, the nature of the infringements and the financial damage caused to the European Union;

| — | improperly applied an excessive 5 % financial correction for 2011 because, taking into account the nature of the infringements found by the Commission and other circumstances, the resultant risk of loss to the Fund was not significant; |
| --- | --- |

—

improperly applied an excessive 5 % financial correction for 2011 because, taking into account the nature of the infringements found by the Commission and other circumstances, the resultant risk of loss to the Fund was not significant;

| — | improperly applied a 5 % financial correction for 2012 because application thereof is provided for only in cases where there is a significant resultant risk of loss to the Fund, even though the checks carried out by the Republic of Lithuania and the information provided established that the number, extent and nature of the discrepancies established for 2012 and the resultant risk to the Fund are significantly lower in comparison with the discrepancies established in 2011; consequently, only a small financial risk to the Fund could have arisen. |
| --- | --- |

—

improperly applied a 5 % financial correction for 2012 because application thereof is provided for only in cases where there is a significant resultant risk of loss to the Fund, even though the checks carried out by the Republic of Lithuania and the information provided established that the number, extent and nature of the discrepancies established for 2012 and the resultant risk to the Fund are significantly lower in comparison with the discrepancies established in 2011; consequently, only a small financial risk to the Fund could have arisen.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, inasmuch as the Commission did not take the view that on-the-spot checks of ovine and bovine animals could take place at different times, with the result that that particular infringement is not as significant as the Commission indicates. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, inasmuch as the Commission did not take the view that on-the-spot checks of ovine and bovine animals could take place at different times, with the result that that particular infringement is not as significant as the Commission indicates.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:






  — | failed to provide proper reasons for and substantiate its finding of infringements or the nature of such infringements and the resultant risk to the Fund; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:

—

failed to provide proper reasons for and substantiate its finding of infringements or the nature of such infringements and the resultant risk to the Fund;

| — | did not provide reasons why the discrepancies established in 2011 and 2012 for the purpose of applying the 5 % financial correction were assessed jointly even though their number and nature differed significantly in each year, and, in any event, did not provide any convincing reasons why a uniform flat-rate correction of 5 % has to be imposed for the discrepancies established in 2012 and for those established in 2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

did not provide reasons why the discrepancies established in 2011 and 2012 for the purpose of applying the 5 % financial correction were assessed jointly even though their number and nature differed significantly in each year, and, in any event, did not provide any convincing reasons why a uniform flat-rate correction of 5 % has to be imposed for the discrepancies established in 2012 and for those established in 2011.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/34

---

Action brought on 28 January 2016 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-38/16)

(2016/C 118/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November 2015 with reference Ares(2015)5212500 confirming its decision of 14 September 2015 with reference Ares(2015)3790389 in which the Commission took an additional decision on the request for information of 3 February 2015, submitted by the EEB; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November 2015 with reference Ares(2015)5212500 confirming its decision of 14 September 2015 with reference Ares(2015)3790389 in which the Commission took an additional decision on the request for information of 3 February 2015, submitted by the EEB; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error as to the determination of the subject-matter of the initial application and, consecutively, infringement of the Commission’s obligation to give the said application a full examination and infringement of the Articles 6(2), 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error as to the determination of the subject-matter of the initial application and, consecutively, infringement of the Commission’s obligation to give the said application a full examination and infringement of the Articles 6(2), 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/34

---

Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T-41/16)

(2016/C 118/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd. (Nicosia), Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia) and Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt, Cyprus) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision Ares(2015)5171539 of 18 November 2015 and Commission Decision Ares(2016)220922 of 15 January 2016 in relation to the opposition procedures concerning the application for registration of ‘ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ’ (HALLOUMI)/‘HELLIM’ (ΠΟΠ) (CY-PDO-0005-01243); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision Ares(2015)5171539 of 18 November 2015 and Commission Decision Ares(2016)220922 of 15 January 2016 in relation to the opposition procedures concerning the application for registration of ‘ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ’ (HALLOUMI)/‘HELLIM’ (ΠΟΠ) (CY-PDO-0005-01243);

| — | declare the illegality of Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and the inapplicability of those provisions in the case at hand, insofar as they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the Applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the illegality of Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and the inapplicability of those provisions in the case at hand, insofar as they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the Applicants;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they exclude the applicants from the procedure for the registration of Halloumi/Hellim as a protected designation of origin in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they exclude the applicants from the procedure for the registration of Halloumi/Hellim as a protected designation of origin in the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they breach the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they breach the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) are illegal and should be declared inapplicable insofar they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) are illegal and should be declared inapplicable insofar they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the applicants.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 343, p. 1)

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/35

---

Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament)

(Case T-57/16)

(2016/C 118/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design representation of an ornament — Community Design No 1 689 027-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 in Case R 2346/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the contested design invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested design invalid;

| — | order EUIPO, and any other parties or interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and any other parties or interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/36

---

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)

(Case T-62/16)

(2016/C 118/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd (Incheon, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘PUMA’ — EU trade mark application No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 1052/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/37

---

Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-71/16 P)

(2016/C 118/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 68 to 75 of the judgment itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 68 to 75 of the judgment itself;

| — | Consequently, order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-82/12).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.

The appellant argues, in particular, that the claim for damages in Case F-82/12 was wrongly treated as equivalent to the claim for damages in Case F-55/08, and that there was an incorrect finding of res judicata regarding some of the requests for compensation.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/37

---

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

(Case T-72/16)

(2016/C 118/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY mobile’ — Application for registration No 7 213 424

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 53/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137;

| — | accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and

| — | The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/38

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-73/16 P)

(2016/C 118/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 61, 63 to 69 and 71 of the judgment itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 61, 63 to 69 and 71 of the judgment itself;

| — | Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-37/12).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-70/16 P De Nicola v EIB.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/39

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-75/16 P)

(2016/C 118/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself;

| — | Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-128/11).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.

The appellant emphasises, in particular, that the heads of claim seeking annulment of the messages of 4 July and 12 August 2011 and annulment of the decision of 6 September 2011 rejecting the request to launch a conciliation procedure are admissible.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

(Case T-76/16)

(2016/C 118/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AEGYPTISCHE ERDE’ — Application for registration No 14 027 239

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 in Case R 1257/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/40

---

Action brought on 16 February 2016 — Sartour v Parliament

(Case T-78/16)

(2016/C 118/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sartour (Beveren, Belgium) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present action admissible and well founded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present action admissible and well founded.

Consequently:

| — | Annul the Parliament’s decision, set out in the letter of 18 December 2015, by which it informed the applicant of the rejection of its tender submitted under public procurement procedure No 06B40/2015/M073 to the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the European Parliament in Brussels; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Parliament’s decision, set out in the letter of 18 December 2015, by which it informed the applicant of the rejection of its tender submitted under public procurement procedure No 06B40/2015/M073 to the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the European Parliament in Brussels;

| — | Annul the Parliament’s decision, date unknown, to award the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Parliament’s decision, date unknown, to award the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building;

| — | In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle governing the qualitative selection criteria of the minimum thresholds to be applied by the service providers as regards their turnover, the competition principle and the principle of equality of tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle governing the qualitative selection criteria of the minimum thresholds to be applied by the service providers as regards their turnover, the competition principle and the principle of equality of tenderers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to state reasons for the acts of the EU institutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to state reasons for the acts of the EU institutions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment in and openness of public procurement, manifest error of assessment, equal treatment of tenderers and free competition between tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment in and openness of public procurement, manifest error of assessment, equal treatment of tenderers and free competition between tenderers.

---

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/41

---

Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission

(Case T-79/16)

(2016/C 118/48)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters (Hoenderloo, Netherlands) and 21 other applicants (represented by: H. Viaene, D. Gillet and T. Ruys, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the action for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action for annulment admissible;

| — | annul Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on avooronderzoklleged illegal State aid in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land (State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands) as well as the implicit rejection of the Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on avooronderzoklleged illegal State aid in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land (State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands) as well as the implicit rejection of the Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters’s complaint;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the procedural rights laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. At the end of the preliminary investigation, the Commission could not, with sufficient certainly, have been capable of assessing the conformity of the subsidy scheme due to the following factors:






  — | the unusually long duration of the investigation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the procedural rights laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. At the end of the preliminary investigation, the Commission could not, with sufficient certainly, have been capable of assessing the conformity of the subsidy scheme due to the following factors:

—

the unusually long duration of the investigation;

| — | the frequent correspondence between the various relevant parties during the investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the frequent correspondence between the various relevant parties during the investigation;

| — | the fact that the subsidy scheme approved by the decision at the time of the investigation was replaced by another subsidy scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that the subsidy scheme approved by the decision at the time of the investigation was replaced by another subsidy scheme;

| — | the content of the new subsidy scheme that was approved by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

the content of the new subsidy scheme that was approved by the Commission.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty.
  The Commission infringed the principles of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty in so far as it applied the framework for State aid (1) in the form of public service compensation, with effect from 31 January 2012, to a subsidy scheme which had no longer been applied since 2011 and had been replaced by a new subsidy scheme, which was approved by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty.

The Commission infringed the principles of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty in so far as it applied the framework for State aid (1) in the form of public service compensation, with effect from 31 January 2012, to a subsidy scheme which had no longer been applied since 2011 and had been replaced by a new subsidy scheme, which was approved by the Commission.

| 3. | Third plea in law: error of law and failure to state reasons in applying the framework.






  — | The Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying the requirement of an act of entrustment of services of general economic interest, in particular as regards the length of the entrustment period. Furthermore, the Commission also made manifest errors in assessing the amount of compensation and disregarded the requirement of keeping separate accounts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: error of law and failure to state reasons in applying the framework.

—

The Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying the requirement of an act of entrustment of services of general economic interest, in particular as regards the length of the entrustment period. Furthermore, the Commission also made manifest errors in assessing the amount of compensation and disregarded the requirement of keeping separate accounts.

| — | In assessing whether the requirement of an act of entrustment of services of general economic interest had been satisfied, the Commission did not sufficiently address whether the gratuitous transfer of land is an act of entrustment. Furthermore, the Commission also made no assessment of the safeguards for avoiding overcompensation when land is transferred gratuitously. |
| --- | --- |

—

In assessing whether the requirement of an act of entrustment of services of general economic interest had been satisfied, the Commission did not sufficiently address whether the gratuitous transfer of land is an act of entrustment. Furthermore, the Commission also made no assessment of the safeguards for avoiding overcompensation when land is transferred gratuitously.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU.






  — | The gratuitous transfers and acquisition subsidies were manifestly unnecessary and unjustified to achieve the targeted objective of nature conservation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU.

—

The gratuitous transfers and acquisition subsidies were manifestly unnecessary and unjustified to achieve the targeted objective of nature conservation.

| — | The fact that the aid provisions were claimed by only thirteen land stewardship organisations is not in the least necessary or justified in enabling the common good of nature conservation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fact that the aid provisions were claimed by only thirteen land stewardship organisations is not in the least necessary or justified in enabling the common good of nature conservation.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ 2012 L 7, p. 3) and Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (OJ 2012, C 8, p. 15).

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/43

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2016 — Labiri v EESC

(Case F-33/15) (1)

(2016/C 118/49)

Language of the case: French

The single Judge has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.

---