# Official Journal C 314/29 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 314 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5929 August 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 314

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5929 August 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 314/01 | 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 314/01

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 314/02 | Case C-540/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany — Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances — Provision relating to cases of undue hardship — Implementing powers of the Commission) | 2 |
| 2016/C 314/03 | Case C-557/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum payment and penalty payment) | 2 |
| 2016/C 314/04 | Case C-11/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český rozhlas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth Directive 77/388/EC — Value added tax — Article 2(1) — Supply of services effected for consideration — Definition — Public broadcasting — Financing from a compulsory statutory fee) | 3 |
| 2016/C 314/05 | Case C-15/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports — Article 35 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void — Cross-border concession agreement — Restriction — Justification — Disproportionate) | 4 |
| 2016/C 314/06 | Case C-207/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Figurative mark including the element CVTC — Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered — Further period — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 47 — Principle of legal certainty) | 4 |
| 2016/C 314/07 | Case C-255/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) — Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight — Concepts of ticket and price of the ticket — Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger) | 5 |
| 2016/C 314/08 | Case C-267/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Input tax — Deduction) | 6 |
| 2016/C 314/09 | Case C-280/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Harju Maakohus — Estonia) — Irina Nikolajeva v Multi Protect OÜ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(3) and Article 102(1) — Obligation on an EU trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with acts of infringement — No application seeking such an order — Concept of special reasons for not ordering such a prohibition — Concept of reasonable compensation in respect of acts occurring after publication of an application for registration of an EU trade mark and before publication of the registration of the trade mark) | 6 |
| 2016/C 314/10 | Case C-419/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 32 and 33 — Licence — Register of Community designs — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss) | 7 |
| 2016/C 314/11 | Case C-611/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO | 8 |
| 2016/C 314/12 | Case C-639/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2015 by Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-720/13: Gat Microencapsulation v EUIPO | 8 |
| 2016/C 314/13 | Case C-275/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Comune di Balzola and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni | 8 |
| 2016/C 314/14 | Case C-282/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 May 2016 — RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. v Heta Asset Resolution AG | 9 |
| 2016/C 314/15 | Case C-297/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor | 10 |
| 2016/C 314/16 | Case C-298/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj | 11 |
| 2016/C 314/17 | Case C-310/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev | 11 |
| 2016/C 314/18 | Case C-368/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited | 13 |
| 2016/C 314/19 | Case C-377/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament | 13 |
| 2016/C 314/20 | Case C-380/16: Action brought on 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 14 |
| 2016/C 314/21 | Case C-384/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission | 15 |
| 2016/C 314/22 | Case C-388/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 16 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 314/23 | Case T-146/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Price-fixing agreements, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Principle of economic continuity — Principle of personal liability — Fines — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader — Ceiling of 10 % — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 17 |
| 2016/C 314/24 | Case T-143/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of advantage — Combus judgment — Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage — No such advantage) | 18 |
| 2016/C 314/25 | Case T-99/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alesa v Commission (Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project Sustainable urbanisation project — Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK) — Negotiated procedure — Article 266(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 — Transparency — Equal treatment — Non-contractual liability) | 18 |
| 2016/C 314/26 | Case T-266/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission (Public service contracts — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons) | 19 |
| 2016/C 314/27 | Case T-742/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CALCILITE — Earlier EU word mark Calcilit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public — Public common to the goods in question) | 20 |
| 2016/C 314/28 | Case T-26/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection board — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality) | 20 |
| 2016/C 314/29 | Case T-27/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — EMA v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality) | 21 |
| 2016/C 314/30 | Case T-429/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 22 |
| 2016/C 314/31 | Case T-491/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons) | 23 |
| 2016/C 314/32 | Case T-567/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 23 |
| 2016/C 314/33 | Case T-732/15 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — New application — No new facts — No urgency) | 24 |
| 2016/C 314/34 | Case T-300/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission | 24 |
| 2016/C 314/35 | Case T-301/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission | 25 |
| 2016/C 314/36 | Case T-325/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — České dráhy v Commission | 26 |
| 2016/C 314/37 | Case T-329/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA | 27 |
| 2016/C 314/38 | Case T-339/16: Action brought on 26 June 2016 — City of Paris v Commission | 27 |
| 2016/C 314/39 | Case T-344/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE) | 28 |
| 2016/C 314/40 | Case T-345/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE) | 29 |
| 2016/C 314/41 | Case T-352/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission | 30 |
| 2016/C 314/42 | Case T-353/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION) | 31 |
| 2016/C 314/43 | Case T-361/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB) | 31 |
| 2016/C 314/44 | Case T-362/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA) | 32 |
| 2016/C 314/45 | Case T-369/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission | 33 |
| 2016/C 314/46 | Case T-372/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz) | 34 |
| 2016/C 314/47 | Case T-456/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission | 35 |
| 2016/C 314/48 | Case T-460/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission | 35 |
| 2016/C 314/49 | Case T-176/15: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council | 35 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 314/02

Case C-540/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany — Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances — Provision relating to cases of undue hardship — Implementing powers of the Commission)

2

2016/C 314/03

Case C-557/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum payment and penalty payment)

2

2016/C 314/04

Case C-11/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český rozhlas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth Directive 77/388/EC — Value added tax — Article 2(1) — Supply of services effected for consideration — Definition — Public broadcasting — Financing from a compulsory statutory fee)

3

2016/C 314/05

Case C-15/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports — Article 35 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void — Cross-border concession agreement — Restriction — Justification — Disproportionate)

4

2016/C 314/06

Case C-207/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Figurative mark including the element CVTC — Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered — Further period — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 47 — Principle of legal certainty)

4

2016/C 314/07

Case C-255/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) — Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight — Concepts of ticket and price of the ticket — Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger)

5

2016/C 314/08

Case C-267/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Input tax — Deduction)

6

2016/C 314/09

Case C-280/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Harju Maakohus — Estonia) — Irina Nikolajeva v Multi Protect OÜ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(3) and Article 102(1) — Obligation on an EU trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with acts of infringement — No application seeking such an order — Concept of special reasons for not ordering such a prohibition — Concept of reasonable compensation in respect of acts occurring after publication of an application for registration of an EU trade mark and before publication of the registration of the trade mark)

6

2016/C 314/10

Case C-419/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 32 and 33 — Licence — Register of Community designs — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss)

7

2016/C 314/11

Case C-611/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

L’Oréal

EUIPO

8

2016/C 314/12

Case C-639/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2015 by Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-720/13: Gat Microencapsulation v EUIPO

8

2016/C 314/13

Case C-275/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Comune di Balzola and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

8

2016/C 314/14

Case C-282/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 May 2016 — RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. v Heta Asset Resolution AG

9

2016/C 314/15

Case C-297/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

10

2016/C 314/16

Case C-298/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

11

2016/C 314/17

Case C-310/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev

11

2016/C 314/18

Case C-368/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

13

2016/C 314/19

Case C-377/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament

13

2016/C 314/20

Case C-380/16: Action brought on 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

14

2016/C 314/21

Case C-384/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

15

2016/C 314/22

Case C-388/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

16

General Court

2016/C 314/23

Case T-146/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Price-fixing agreements, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Principle of economic continuity — Principle of personal liability — Fines — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader — Ceiling of 10 % — Unlimited jurisdiction)

17

2016/C 314/24

Case T-143/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of advantage — Combus judgment — Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage — No such advantage)

18

2016/C 314/25

Case T-99/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alesa v Commission (Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project Sustainable urbanisation project — Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK) — Negotiated procedure — Article 266(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 — Transparency — Equal treatment — Non-contractual liability)

18

2016/C 314/26

Case T-266/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission (Public service contracts — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons)

19

2016/C 314/27

Case T-742/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CALCILITE — Earlier EU word mark Calcilit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public — Public common to the goods in question)

20

2016/C 314/28

Case T-26/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection board — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality)

20

2016/C 314/29

Case T-27/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — EMA v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality)

21

2016/C 314/30

Case T-429/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

22

2016/C 314/31

Case T-491/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

23

2016/C 314/32

Case T-567/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

23

2016/C 314/33

Case T-732/15 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — New application — No new facts — No urgency)

24

2016/C 314/34

Case T-300/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

24

2016/C 314/35

Case T-301/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

25

2016/C 314/36

Case T-325/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — České dráhy v Commission

26

2016/C 314/37

Case T-329/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA

27

2016/C 314/38

Case T-339/16: Action brought on 26 June 2016 — City of Paris v Commission

27

2016/C 314/39

Case T-344/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

28

2016/C 314/40

Case T-345/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

29

2016/C 314/41

Case T-352/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission

30

2016/C 314/42

Case T-353/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION)

31

2016/C 314/43

Case T-361/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)

31

2016/C 314/44

Case T-362/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)

32

2016/C 314/45

Case T-369/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission

33

2016/C 314/46

Case T-372/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)

34

2016/C 314/47

Case T-456/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission

35

2016/C 314/48

Case T-460/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission

35

2016/C 314/49

Case T-176/15: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council

35

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

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

(2016/C 314/01)

Last publication

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

Past publications

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-540/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany - Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances - Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ - Implementing powers of the Commission))

(2016/C 314/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-557/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum payment and penalty payment))

(2016/C 314/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Reis Silva and J. Brito e Silva, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 8 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292) has been complied with in full; |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 8 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292) has been complied with in full;

| 3. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000;

| 4. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.6.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český rozhlas

(Case C-11/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Directive 77/388/EC - Value added tax - Article 2(1) - Supply of services effected for consideration - Definition - Public broadcasting - Financing from a compulsory statutory fee))

(2016/C 314/04)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Defendant: Český rozhlas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that public broadcasting activities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, funded by a compulsory statutory charge paid by owners or possessors of a radio receiver and carried out by a radio broadcasting company created by law, do not constitute a supply of services ‘effected for consideration’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore fall outside the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl

(Case C-15/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Article 35 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void - Cross-border concession agreement - Restriction - Justification - Disproportionate))

(2016/C 314/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 35 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as the Flemish Community of the Kingdom of Belgium, which requires every undertaking that has its place of establishment within the territory of that entity to draw up all the details on invoices relating to cross-border transactions exclusively in the official language of that entity, failing which those invoices are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-207/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Figurative mark including the element ‘CVTC’ - Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered - Further period - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 47 - Principle of legal certainty))

(2016/C 314/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2015 in Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC) (T-572/12, not published, EU:T:2015:136); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2015 in Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC) (T-572/12, not published, EU:T:2015:136);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1), relating to a request for renewal of the registration of the European Union figurative mark CVTC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1), relating to a request for renewal of the registration of the European Union figurative mark CVTC;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nissan Jidosha KK both in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-572/12 and to the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nissan Jidosha KK both in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-572/12 and to the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

(Case C-255/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) - Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight - Concepts of ‘ticket’ and ‘price of the ticket’ - Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger))

(2016/C 314/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Steef Mennens

Defendant: Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that where a passenger is downgraded on a flight, the price to be taken into account in determining the reimbursement for the passenger affected is the price of the flight on which he was downgraded unless that price is not indicated on the ticket entitling him to transport on that flight, in which case it must be based on the part of the price of the ticket corresponding to the quotient resulting from the distance of that flight and the total distance which the passenger is entitled to travel. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that where a passenger is downgraded on a flight, the price to be taken into account in determining the reimbursement for the passenger affected is the price of the flight on which he was downgraded unless that price is not indicated on the ticket entitling him to transport on that flight, in which case it must be based on the part of the price of the ticket corresponding to the quotient resulting from the distance of that flight and the total distance which the passenger is entitled to travel.

| 2. | Article 10(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, the price of the ticket to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the reimbursement owed to that passenger, where he is downgraded on a flight, is solely the price of the flight itself, to the exclusion of taxes and charges indicated on that ticket, as long as neither the requirement to pay those taxes and charges nor their amount depends on the class for which that ticket has been purchased. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 10(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, the price of the ticket to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the reimbursement owed to that passenger, where he is downgraded on a flight, is solely the price of the flight itself, to the exclusion of taxes and charges indicated on that ticket, as long as neither the requirement to pay those taxes and charges nor their amount depends on the class for which that ticket has been purchased.

---

(1)  OJ C 394, 7.9.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-267/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Input tax - Deduction))

(2016/C 314/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeente Woerden

Defendant: Staatsecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price less than the cost of constructing it, that taxable person is entitled to deduct all of the value added tax paid in respect of the construction of that building, and not only a part of that tax in proportion to the parts of the building which its purchaser uses for economic activities. The fact that that purchaser allows the building at issue to be used without charge is of no importance in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Harju Maakohus — Estonia) — Irina Nikolajeva v Multi Protect OÜ

(Case C-280/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(3) and Article 102(1) - Obligation on an EU trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with acts of infringement - No application seeking such an order - Concept of ‘special reasons’ for not ordering such a prohibition - Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ in respect of acts occurring after publication of an application for registration of an EU trade mark and before publication of the registration of the trade mark))

(2016/C 314/09)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Harju Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irina Nikolajeva

Defendant: Multi Protect OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as not precluding an EU trade mark court from refraining, pursuant to certain principles of national procedural law, from issuing an order which prohibits a third party from proceeding with acts of infringement on the ground that the proprietor of the trade mark concerned has not applied for such an order before that court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as not precluding an EU trade mark court from refraining, pursuant to certain principles of national procedural law, from issuing an order which prohibits a third party from proceeding with acts of infringement on the ground that the proprietor of the trade mark concerned has not applied for such an order before that court.

| 2. | The second sentence of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the proprietor of an EU trade mark from being able to claim compensation in respect of acts of third parties occurring before publication of an application for registration of a trade mark. In the case of acts of third parties committed during the period after publication of the application for registration of the mark concerned but before publication of its registration, the concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ in that provision refers to recovery of the profits actually derived by third parties from use of the mark during that period. On the other hand, that concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ rules out compensation for the wider harm which the proprietor of the mark may have suffered, including, as the case may be, moral prejudice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the proprietor of an EU trade mark from being able to claim compensation in respect of acts of third parties occurring before publication of an application for registration of a trade mark. In the case of acts of third parties committed during the period after publication of the application for registration of the mark concerned but before publication of its registration, the concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ in that provision refers to recovery of the profits actually derived by third parties from use of the mark during that period. On the other hand, that concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ rules out compensation for the wider harm which the proprietor of the mark may have suffered, including, as the case may be, moral prejudice.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-419/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 32 and 33 - Licence - Register of Community designs - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss))

(2016/C 314/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs.

| 2. | Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

(Case C-611/15 P)

(2016/C 314/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal SA (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Cosmética Cabinas, S.L.

By order of 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered L’Oréal SA to bear its own costs.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Appeal brought on 1 December 2015 by Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-720/13: Gat Microencapsulation v EUIPO

(Case C-639/15 P)

(2016/C 314/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma, Agent, M. C. March Cabrelles, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 26 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Comune di Balzola and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-275/16)

(2016/C 314/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, Comune di Cereseto, Comune di Cerrina, Comune di Frassineto Po, Comune di Gabiano, Comune di Limone Piemonte, Comune di Mombello Monferrato, Comune di Morano Sul Po, Comune di Odalengo Piccolo, Comune di Pietraporzio, Comune di Piovà Massaia, Comune di Pontestura, Comune di Ponzano, Comune di Sala Monferrato, Comune di Serralunga di Crea, Comune di Solonghello, Comune di Villamiroglio, Comune di Montemagno, Comune di Scurzolengo, Comune di Alfiano Natta, Comune di Moncalvo, Comune di Cerro Tanaro, Comune di Tonco, Comune di Castagnole Monferrato, Comune di Casorzo, Comune di Calliano, Comune di Robella, Comune di Grana, Comune di Rocchetta Tanaro, Comune di Odalengo Grande, Comune di Coniolo, Comune di Ozzano Monferrato, Comune di Demonte, Comune di Entracque, Comune di Sambuco, Comune di Roccasparvera, Comune di Argentera, Comune di Gaiola, Comune di Valdieri, Anci Piemonte

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Question referred

On a correct interpretation of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) are Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 194/2014 compatible with that directive, in the following respects:

| (a) | Directive 97/67/EC, as amended and supplemented, concerning common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service imposes an obligation on Member States to provide a universal postal service and, in that connection, it provides that postal items must be collected and delivered to the home address of the addressee ‘not less than five working days a week’; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Directive 97/67/EC, as amended and supplemented, concerning common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service imposes an obligation on Member States to provide a universal postal service and, in that connection, it provides that postal items must be collected and delivered to the home address of the addressee ‘not less than five working days a week’;

| (b) | the same Community directive makes provision for possible derogations, by the national regulatory authorities, only ‘in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional’; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the same Community directive makes provision for possible derogations, by the national regulatory authorities, only ‘in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional’;

| (c) | Italian domestic legislation (Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 190/2014 — referred to as the ‘2015 Stability Law’), on the other hand, requires the national regulatory authority to allow the aforementioned derogation, within specified time limits, whenever the operator of the service so requests, relying on the ‘existence of particular situations of an infrastructural or geographical nature in territorial areas with a population density of less than 200 inhabitants per square kilometre’, even where such situations are not of an exceptional nature and affect a considerable proportion of the national population (up to one-quarter of the population and therefore — in the case of areas with low population densities — up to a far wider proportion of national territory)? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Italian domestic legislation (Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 190/2014 — referred to as the ‘2015 Stability Law’), on the other hand, requires the national regulatory authority to allow the aforementioned derogation, within specified time limits, whenever the operator of the service so requests, relying on the ‘existence of particular situations of an infrastructural or geographical nature in territorial areas with a population density of less than 200 inhabitants per square kilometre’, even where such situations are not of an exceptional nature and affect a considerable proportion of the national population (up to one-quarter of the population and therefore — in the case of areas with low population densities — up to a far wider proportion of national territory)?

---

(1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 May 2016 — RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. v Heta Asset Resolution AG

(Case C-282/16)

(2016/C 314/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l.

Defendant: Heta Asset Resolution AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 2(1)(2) and (23) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms in conjunction with Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, under which a ‘credit institution’ is an undertaking the business of which is to take deposits and/or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account (‘CRR institution’), to be interpreted to the effect that a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation also falls within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 2(1)(2) and (23) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms in conjunction with Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, under which a ‘credit institution’ is an undertaking the business of which is to take deposits and/or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account (‘CRR institution’), to be interpreted to the effect that a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation also falls within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU?

| 2. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (as amended by Article 117(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU) to be interpreted to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is fully effective as against persons resident in other Member States — also having regard to Article 17(1) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights — without any further formalities (despite the negative answer to Question 1)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (as amended by Article 117(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU) to be interpreted to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is fully effective as against persons resident in other Member States — also having regard to Article 17(1) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights — without any further formalities (despite the negative answer to Question 1)?

| 3. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the free movement of capital enshrined in EU law by Article 63(1) TFEU preclude a national provision which extends the scope of Directive 2014/59/EU to a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the free movement of capital enshrined in EU law by Article 63(1) TFEU preclude a national provision which extends the scope of Directive 2014/59/EU to a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation?

| 4. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is EU law to be interpreted, in the light of the principle of ‘effet utile’ and the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is to be recognised in another Member State even where the rules of national law based on Directive 2014/59/EU are also applied to an institution which, upon the entry into force of Directive 2014/59/EU on 2 July 2014, was still a credit institution within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR institution), but which lost that status before the expiry of the period for the transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU into national law on 31 December 2014? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is EU law to be interpreted, in the light of the principle of ‘effet utile’ and the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is to be recognised in another Member State even where the rules of national law based on Directive 2014/59/EU are also applied to an institution which, upon the entry into force of Directive 2014/59/EU on 2 July 2014, was still a credit institution within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR institution), but which lost that status before the expiry of the period for the transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU into national law on 31 December 2014?

| 5. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is the term ‘secured liability’ in Article 2(1)(67) and Article 44(2)(b) of Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms to be interpreted, in particular having regard to Article 1(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, as also encompassing liabilities for which a regional public authority (in this case the Austrian Province of Carinthia) has assumed a statutory deficiency guarantee? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is the term ‘secured liability’ in Article 2(1)(67) and Article 44(2)(b) of Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms to be interpreted, in particular having regard to Article 1(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, as also encompassing liabilities for which a regional public authority (in this case the Austrian Province of Carinthia) has assumed a statutory deficiency guarantee?

| 6. | In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are Article 43(2)(b) and Article 59(3)(b) and (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU to be interpreted as precluding a national provision by virtue of which a measure corresponding to the bail-in tool under Article 43 of Directive 2014/59/EU is implemented in a case where there is no longer a realistic prospect that the institution’s viability may be restored and where no systemically important services are transferred to a bridge institution and no other parts of the institution’s business may be sold any longer, but the sole purpose of that institution is management of assets, rights and liabilities with a view to the orderly, active and optimum realisation of those individual assets, rights and liabilities (portfolio liquidation)? In such a case, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 2014/59/EU, should the liquidation of that wind-down entity (wind-down company) preferentially be carried out in the context of orderly insolvency proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are Article 43(2)(b) and Article 59(3)(b) and (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU to be interpreted as precluding a national provision by virtue of which a measure corresponding to the bail-in tool under Article 43 of Directive 2014/59/EU is implemented in a case where there is no longer a realistic prospect that the institution’s viability may be restored and where no systemically important services are transferred to a bridge institution and no other parts of the institution’s business may be sold any longer, but the sole purpose of that institution is management of assets, rights and liabilities with a view to the orderly, active and optimum realisation of those individual assets, rights and liabilities (portfolio liquidation)? In such a case, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 2014/59/EU, should the liquidation of that wind-down entity (wind-down company) preferentially be carried out in the context of orderly insolvency proceedings?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

(Case C-297/16)

(2016/C 314/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România

Respondent: Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

Intervener: Asociaţia Naţională a Distribuitorilor de Produse de Uz Veterinar din România

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law preclude national legislation which provides that veterinary surgeons are to have an exclusive right in relation to the retailing and use of organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law preclude national legislation which provides that veterinary surgeons are to have an exclusive right in relation to the retailing and use of organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products?

| 2. | If such an exclusive right is compatible with EU law, does the latter preclude such a right from additionally concerning the structures through which the sale of such products takes place, in the sense that such structures must be mainly or exclusively owned by one or more veterinary surgeons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If such an exclusive right is compatible with EU law, does the latter preclude such a right from additionally concerning the structures through which the sale of such products takes place, in the sense that such structures must be mainly or exclusively owned by one or more veterinary surgeons?

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-298/16)

(2016/C 314/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Teodor Ispas, Anduța Ispas

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Question referred

Is an administrative practice consisting in the taking of a decision imposing obligations on an individual without allowing that individual to have access to all of the information and documents considered by the public authority when it adopted that decision, being information and documents contained in the administrative file (not a public file) drawn up by the public authority, compatible with the principle of respect for the rights of the defence?

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev

(Case C-310/16)

(2016/C 314/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Petar Dzivev

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with:






  — | Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which envisages that the Member States will take measures to effectively counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with:

—

Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which envisages that the Member States will take measures to effectively counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union;

| — | Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests (the ‘PFI Convention’) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council Decision 2007/436/EC [of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources] [Euratom], according to which every Member State is to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective punishment of VAT evasion; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests (the ‘PFI Convention’) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council Decision 2007/436/EC [of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources] [Euratom], according to which every Member State is to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective punishment of VAT evasion;

| — | Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter which guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal previously established by law, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter which guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal previously established by law,

if, under national law, the evidence obtained through the deployment of ‘special intelligence methods’, specifically through the interception of the telecommunications of individuals subsequently charged with VAT fraud, cannot be used because it was ordered by a court that lacked jurisdiction, and at the same time the following requirements are met:

| — | At an earlier point (between one and three months previously) the interception of some of these telecommunications was requested and ordered by the same court, when at that point it still had jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

At an earlier point (between one and three months previously) the interception of some of these telecommunications was requested and ordered by the same court, when at that point it still had jurisdiction;

| — | an application authorising the disputed interception of telecommunications (for the extension of the earlier interception of telecommunications and for the tapping of new telephone connections) was made at the same court which no longer had jurisdiction because immediately before that its jurisdiction had been transferred to a different court; despite its lack of jurisdiction the original court examined the substance of the application and made an order; |
| --- | --- |

—

an application authorising the disputed interception of telecommunications (for the extension of the earlier interception of telecommunications and for the tapping of new telephone connections) was made at the same court which no longer had jurisdiction because immediately before that its jurisdiction had been transferred to a different court; despite its lack of jurisdiction the original court examined the substance of the application and made an order;

| — | at a later point (about one month later) a fresh application was made to authorise the tapping of the same telephone connections and granted by the court that now had jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

at a later point (about one month later) a fresh application was made to authorise the tapping of the same telephone connections and granted by the court that now had jurisdiction;

| — | none of the orders made actually contain any reasoning supporting them; |
| --- | --- |

—

none of the orders made actually contain any reasoning supporting them;

| — | the statutory regulation that ordered the transfer of jurisdiction was unclear, led to numerous contradictory court decisions and caused the Varhoven sad to issue a binding interpretation decision about two years after the legal transfer of jurisdiction and the interception of telecommunications in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

the statutory regulation that ordered the transfer of jurisdiction was unclear, led to numerous contradictory court decisions and caused the Varhoven sad to issue a binding interpretation decision about two years after the legal transfer of jurisdiction and the interception of telecommunications in question;

| — | the court examining the current case is not authorised to decide on applications authorising the deployment of special intelligence methods (the interception of telecommunications); however, it does have jurisdiction to decide on the legality of any interception of telecommunications carried out, including the finding that an order does not meet the statutory requirements and therefore to refrain from assessing the evidence obtained in this way; this power only exists if a valid order has been issued for the interception of telecommunications; |
| --- | --- |

—

the court examining the current case is not authorised to decide on applications authorising the deployment of special intelligence methods (the interception of telecommunications); however, it does have jurisdiction to decide on the legality of any interception of telecommunications carried out, including the finding that an order does not meet the statutory requirements and therefore to refrain from assessing the evidence obtained in this way; this power only exists if a valid order has been issued for the interception of telecommunications;

| — | the use of this evidence (the defendants’ telephone conversations, the interception of which was ordered by a court that had already lost its jurisdiction) is of crucial importance to the resolution of the question of [the defendant’s] liability as the ringleader of a criminal gang formed for the purpose of committing tax offences under the Bulgarian Value Added Tax Act or as an instigator of specific tax offences, but he can only be found guilty and sentenced if these telephone conversations can be used in evidence; otherwise he would have to be acquitted. |
| --- | --- |

—

the use of this evidence (the defendants’ telephone conversations, the interception of which was ordered by a court that had already lost its jurisdiction) is of crucial importance to the resolution of the question of [the defendant’s] liability as the ringleader of a criminal gang formed for the purpose of committing tax offences under the Bulgarian Value Added Tax Act or as an instigator of specific tax offences, but he can only be found guilty and sentenced if these telephone conversations can be used in evidence; otherwise he would have to be acquitted.

| 2. | Does the judgment given in the reference for a preliminary ruling C 614/14 apply in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the judgment given in the reference for a preliminary ruling C 614/14 apply in the present case?

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

(Case C-368/16)

(2016/C 314/18)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Port of Assens

Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

Question referred

Must Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) be interpreted as meaning that an injured party who is permitted under national law to bring an action directly against the company providing insurance cover for the party which caused the injury is bound by an agreement on jurisdiction validly concluded between the insurer and the policy-holder in accordance with Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/13

---

Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament

(Case C-377/16)

(2016/C 314/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Call for Expressions of Interest — Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Call for Expressions of Interest — Contract Staff — Function Group I — Drivers (F/M) — EP/CAST/S/16/2016. (1)

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58, (2) Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) (the Charter) and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations by imposing the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the applicant should be solely in English, French and German. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58, (2) Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) (the Charter) and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations by imposing the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the applicant should be solely in English, French and German.

| 2. | Second plea: infringement of Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants contained in the Staff Regulations, by requiring satisfactory knowledge of a second official language of the European Union when that knowledge is not necessary for the performance of the duties that the successful applicants will be called upon to carry out. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea: infringement of Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants contained in the Staff Regulations, by requiring satisfactory knowledge of a second official language of the European Union when that knowledge is not necessary for the performance of the duties that the successful applicants will be called upon to carry out.

| 3. | Third plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, and Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants, because the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, and Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants, because the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea: the choice of English, French and German, as the second language of the call for expressions of interest, constitutes an arbitrary choice that gives rise to discrimination on the ground of language prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea: the choice of English, French and German, as the second language of the call for expressions of interest, constitutes an arbitrary choice that gives rise to discrimination on the ground of language prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

---

(1)  
  OJ 2016, C 131 A, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, 17, p. 385), as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 (
  OJ 2013, L 158, p. 1
  ).

(3)  
  OJ 2016, C 202, p. 389.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

Action brought on 8 July 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-380/16)

(2016/C 314/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and M. Wasmeier, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) by excluding travel services used by taxable persons for their business from the special scheme for travel agents and allowing travel agents, in so far as the special scheme is applicable to them, to determine on a flat-rate basis the tax assessment base for groups of services and for each taxable period; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) by excluding travel services used by taxable persons for their business from the special scheme for travel agents and allowing travel agents, in so far as the special scheme is applicable to them, to determine on a flat-rate basis the tax assessment base for groups of services and for each taxable period;

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

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the scheme laid down in Germany for the calculation of value added tax on travel services is not consistent with Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (1) That directive provides, in Articles 306 to 310, a special scheme under which the travel services provided by a travel agent to a customer are to be treated as a single service. German law unlawfully departs from that scheme.

First, it is not permitted to exclude taxable persons who use travel services for their business from the application of the special scheme. The Court has already ruled in its judgment of 26 September 2013 in Case C-189/11, (2)
  Commission v Spain, that the special scheme must be applied not only to services provided to private final consumers but also to services provided to taxable traders. It is not open to the Member States to restrict the application of that scheme solely to the former category.

Second, the method of calculation provided for under the German law on turnover tax is incompatible with Directive 2006/112/EC. Pursuant to Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of that directive, the taxable amount must be determined separately for each journey. German law, by contrast, permits a flat-rate calculation of the profit margin for ‘groups of services’ or for all journeys within a specified period of time. The Court also held in the abovementioned judgment that a flat-rate calculation of that kind is not consistent with the common system of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  EU:C:2013:587.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/15

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

(Case C-384/16 P)

(2016/C 314/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Order of the Third Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15, European Union Copper Task Force v. European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Order of the Third Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15, European Union Copper Task Force v. European Commission.

| — | Declare the admissibility of the action for annulment lodged by the European Copper Task Force against the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the admissibility of the action for annulment lodged by the European Copper Task Force against the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408.

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs generated by these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs generated by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court committed an error of law by considering that Implementing Regulation 2015/408 (1) is a regulatory act that entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court committed an error of law by considering that Implementing Regulation 2015/408 (1) is a regulatory act that entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

| 2. | The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the dismissal of the EUCuTF’s action would not impair its right and its members’ right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the dismissal of the EUCuTF’s action would not impair its right and its members’ right to effective judicial protection.

| 3. | The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the EUCuTF and its members were not individually affected by Implementing Regulation 2015/408. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the EUCuTF and its members were not individually affected by Implementing Regulation 2015/408.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution. OJ L 67, p. 18

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/16

---

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-388/16)

(2016/C 314/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU, in that it has not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 December 2014 in Case C-576/13, (1)
  Commission v Spain, relating to the failure by the Kingdom of Spain to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU, in that it has not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 December 2014 in Case C-576/13, (1)
  Commission v Spain, relating to the failure by the Kingdom of Spain to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU.

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 134 107,2 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-576/13, from the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered until the date on which the judgment in Case C-576/13 is fully complied with. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 134 107,2 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-576/13, from the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered until the date on which the judgment in Case C-576/13 is fully complied with.

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 27 522 by the number of days on which the infringement continues from the date on which the judgment in Case C-576/13 was delivered until: |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 27 522 by the number of days on which the infringement continues from the date on which the judgment in Case C-576/13 was delivered until:

| — | the date on which the Kingdom of Spain adopts the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-576/13, if the Court holds that that adoption has taken place before judgment in this case is delivered, |
| --- | --- |

—

the date on which the Kingdom of Spain adopts the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-576/13, if the Court holds that that adoption has taken place before judgment in this case is delivered,

| — | the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered, if the judgment in Case C-576/13 has not been fully complied with by that date. |
| --- | --- |

—

the date on which the judgment in this case is delivered, if the judgment in Case C-576/13 has not been fully complied with by that date.

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Spain has not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 December 2014 in Case C-576/13, Commission v Spain.

---

(1)  EU: C: 2014: 2430

---

General Court

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Parker Hannifin Manufacturing and Parker-Hannifin v Commission

(Case T-146/09 RENV) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Price-fixing agreements, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Principle of economic continuity - Principle of personal liability - Fines - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Ceiling of 10 % - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2016/C 314/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, (Corsico, Italy) and Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Mayfield Heights, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Amory, F. Marchini Camia and É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, S. Noë and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as that decision concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment or a substantial reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on them in that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls subparagraph (e) of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses) in so far as a 30 % increase was applied to the amount of the fine to be paid jointly and severally by Parker-Hannifin Corp., on the basis of the aggravating circumstance of the role of leader played by ITR SpA from 11 June 1999 to 30 September 2001 and in so far as the European Commission did not calculate, as regards the part of the fine for which Parker ITR was held exclusively liable with regard to the period prior to 1 January 2002, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover provided for by Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] solely on the basis of the turnover of Parker ITR Srl; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls subparagraph (e) of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses) in so far as a 30 % increase was applied to the amount of the fine to be paid jointly and severally by Parker-Hannifin Corp., on the basis of the aggravating circumstance of the role of leader played by ITR SpA from 11 June 1999 to 30 September 2001 and in so far as the European Commission did not calculate, as regards the part of the fine for which Parker ITR was held exclusively liable with regard to the period prior to 1 January 2002, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover provided for by Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] solely on the basis of the turnover of Parker ITR Srl;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR, at EUR 19 945 728, for EUR 6 400 000 of which Parker-Hannifin is jointly and severally liable; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR, at EUR 19 945 728, for EUR 6 400 000 of which Parker-Hannifin is jointly and severally liable;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Parker Hannifin Manufacturing, Parker-Hannifin and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Parker Hannifin Manufacturing, Parker-Hannifin and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-143/12) (1)

((State aid - Postal sector - Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of advantage - ‘Combus’ judgment - Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage - No such advantage))

(2016/C 314/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze and K. Petersen, and subsequently T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents, and U. Soltész, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Alesa v Commission

(Case T-99/14) (1)

((Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project - Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ - Negotiated procedure - Article 266(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 - Transparency - Equal treatment - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 314/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alesa Srl (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: N. Giampaolo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2013/S 234 405244), to award the public contract DCI-ASIA/2013/329-453, relating to the supply of technical assistance to the project ‘Sustainable urbanisation project — Link between the eco-cities of Europe and China (EC LINK)’ to a tenderer other than the applicant, secondly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for damage which the applicant allegedly suffered and, thirdly, an application based on Article 277 TFEU and requesting the General Court to assess ‘the lawfulness/unlawfulness and applicability/inapplicability’ of Article 266 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), and of point 2.4.13 of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for European Union external actions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alesa Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alesa Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission

(Case T-266/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 314/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Union Assistance Mission (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Union Assistance Mission (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE)

(Case T-742/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CALCILITE - Earlier EU word mark Calcilit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relevant public - Public common to the goods in question))

(2016/C 314/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Materis Paints Italia SpA (Novate Milanese, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft and Materis Paints Italia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4) as regards the ‘paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants’ covered by the contested trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4) as regards the ‘paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants’ covered by the contested trade mark;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH, EUIPO and Materis Paints Italia SpA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH, EUIPO and Materis Paints Italia SpA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov

(Case T-26/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection board - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))

(2016/C 314/28)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011, by which it proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011, by which it proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — EMA v Hristov

(Case T-27/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))

(2016/C 314/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA;

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12) in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12) in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)

(Case T-429/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 314/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 2176/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (ConnectedWork)

(Case T-491/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union word mark ConnectedWork - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 314/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2015 (Case R 160/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ConnectedWork as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines)

(Case T-567/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 314/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 2368/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission

(Case T-732/15 R II)

((Application for interim measures - Environment - Consumer protection - Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - New application - No new facts - No urgency))

(2016/C 314/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa); ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City); ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Crespi and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/24

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-300/16)

(2016/C 314/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/25

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-301/16)

(2016/C 314/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/26

---

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — České dráhy v Commission

(Case T-325/16)

(2016/C 314/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: České dráhy, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul decision C(2016) 2417 final of the European Commission of 18 April 2016 (Case AT.40156 — Falcon); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision C(2016) 2417 final of the European Commission of 18 April 2016 (Case AT.40156 — Falcon);

| — | order the Commission to pay České dráhy the costs of these proceedings in full. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay České dráhy the costs of these proceedings in full.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision on an inspection concerning participation in anti-competitive conduct, or the inspection itself, constitutes an arbitrary and disproportionate interference in the private sphere of the applicant






  — | The contested decision was adopted contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the crucial information may already be found in the file of the procedure before the national body for the protection of economic competition, and two private-law procedures are also being carried on in the same case. The aim pursued by the contested decision could moreover be achieved in a less intrusive manner which would limit the extent of the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision on an inspection concerning participation in anti-competitive conduct, or the inspection itself, constitutes an arbitrary and disproportionate interference in the private sphere of the applicant

—

The contested decision was adopted contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the crucial information may already be found in the file of the procedure before the national body for the protection of economic competition, and two private-law procedures are also being carried on in the same case. The aim pursued by the contested decision could moreover be achieved in a less intrusive manner which would limit the extent of the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements laid down for the standard of the statement of reasons and the definition of the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection






  — | In the contested decision the Commission defined the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection inadmissibly broadly. It also gave insufficient reasons for the contested decision. In the statement of reasons for the contested decision the Commission did not describe specifically the facts and hypotheses it intended to ascertain by means of the inspection. Nor did it specify any circumstantial evidence to support its suspicions. The definition of the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection in the contested decision and its statement of reasons did not enable the applicant to determine its corresponding obligations sufficiently precisely. The contested decision thus also interferes with the applicant’s rights of defence. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements laid down for the standard of the statement of reasons and the definition of the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection

—

In the contested decision the Commission defined the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection inadmissibly broadly. It also gave insufficient reasons for the contested decision. In the statement of reasons for the contested decision the Commission did not describe specifically the facts and hypotheses it intended to ascertain by means of the inspection. Nor did it specify any circumstantial evidence to support its suspicions. The definition of the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection in the contested decision and its statement of reasons did not enable the applicant to determine its corresponding obligations sufficiently precisely. The contested decision thus also interferes with the applicant’s rights of defence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that no evidence, even circumstantial, exists to give grounds for suspicion of anticompetitive conduct by the applicant which would support the adoption of the contested decision and the carrying out of an inspection, and the evidence collected in the procedure before the national body for the protection of economic competition in fact excludes such suspicion. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that no evidence, even circumstantial, exists to give grounds for suspicion of anticompetitive conduct by the applicant which would support the adoption of the contested decision and the carrying out of an inspection, and the evidence collected in the procedure before the national body for the protection of economic competition in fact excludes such suspicion.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have power to adopt the contested decision or carry out the inspection, since the alleged anticompetitive conduct of the applicant cannot in any event affect trade between Member States and the applicant cannot in the present case have a dominant position in the internal market or a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have power to adopt the contested decision or carry out the inspection, since the alleged anticompetitive conduct of the applicant cannot in any event affect trade between Member States and the applicant cannot in the present case have a dominant position in the internal market or a substantial part of it.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the adoption of the contested decision and the carrying out of an inspection more than four years after the commencement of the procedure before the national body for the protection of economic competition is contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the adoption of the contested decision and the carrying out of an inspection more than four years after the commencement of the procedure before the national body for the protection of economic competition is contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the associated approach of the Commission interfered with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter (or Article 8 of the ECHR) and Article 48 of the Charter (or Article 6 of the ECHR). |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the associated approach of the Commission interfered with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter (or Article 8 of the ECHR) and Article 48 of the Charter (or Article 6 of the ECHR).

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/27

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-329/16)

(2016/C 314/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency,

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the Contested Acts; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Contested Acts; and

| — | order the European Commission and the EMA to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission and the EMA to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of an act of the European Commission removing ‘elotuzumab’ from the Union Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or a possible act of the European Commission or the European Medicines Agency determining that the orphan designation criteria for ‘elotuzumab’ were not met any more at the time of marketing authorisation of the medicinal product ‘Empliciti’.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts violate Article 5 (12) (b) of the Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1), in conjunction with the principle of proportionality:






  — | First, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, a medicinal product that received a marketing authorisation after the application for marketing authorisation for the orphan medicine, cannot be taken into account under Article 3 (b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts violate Article 5 (12) (b) of the Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1), in conjunction with the principle of proportionality:

—

First, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, a medicinal product that received a marketing authorisation after the application for marketing authorisation for the orphan medicine, cannot be taken into account under Article 3 (b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000.

| — | Second, pursuant to Article 5(12) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the orphan designation can only be withdrawn when the criteria of Article 3 Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 are no longer met. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, pursuant to Article 5(12) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the orphan designation can only be withdrawn when the criteria of Article 3 Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 are no longer met.

| — | Third, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the EMA and the Commission must apply a standard of proof that supports the objective of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the EMA and the Commission must apply a standard of proof that supports the objective of the Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, in conjunction with Article 5(8) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as there is no formal Commission decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, in conjunction with Article 5(8) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as there is no formal Commission decision.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/27

---

Action brought on 26 June 2016 — City of Paris v Commission

(Case T-339/16)

(2016/C 314/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: City of Paris (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

| — | order the European Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro as compensation for the harm caused to the City of Paris as a result of the adoption of such a regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro as compensation for the harm caused to the City of Paris as a result of the adoption of such a regulation;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’) is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the European Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The Commission lacked substantive competence and infringed essential procedural requirements when adopting the contested regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’) is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the European Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The Commission lacked substantive competence and infringed essential procedural requirements when adopting the contested regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void by reason of the infringement of primary law, secondary environmental law and subsidiary rules of EU law as a result of the failure to comply with the general principles of EU environmental law and with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void by reason of the infringement of primary law, secondary environmental law and subsidiary rules of EU law as a result of the failure to comply with the general principles of EU environmental law and with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

Concerning the compensatory aspect of the action, the applicant submits that the conditions giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union are satisfied to the extent that, first, the contested regulation contains irregularities both in form and in substance, secondly, the contested regulation occasioned actual and certain harm to the applicant and, thirdly, the direct causal link between the Commission’s conduct and the harm alleged cannot be disputed.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/28

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-344/16)

(2016/C 314/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 736/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred by refusing registration of the mark for a greater range of goods and services than was justified by that evidence. The Board of Appeal erred in their application of the law of passing off by concluding there was a misrepresentation with respect to these goods and/or the Opponent’s goodwill extended to these goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred by refusing registration of the mark for a greater range of goods and services than was justified by that evidence. The Board of Appeal erred in their application of the law of passing off by concluding there was a misrepresentation with respect to these goods and/or the Opponent’s goodwill extended to these goods.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/29

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-345/16)

(2016/C 314/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 880/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/30

---

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission

(Case T-352/16)

(2016/C 314/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: City of Brussels (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele and S. Kaisergruber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its application admissible and well founded;

consequently:

| — | annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

| — | 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 its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of recitals 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), and of Annex I to that regulation, and alleging misuse and abuse of powers by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of recitals 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), and of Annex I to that regulation, and alleging misuse and abuse of powers by the European Commission.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5a(3) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23), of recital 3 of Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 11), of recital 25 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Article 5(3) of that regulation, and alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation and misused its powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5a(3) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23), of recital 3 of Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 11), of recital 25 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Article 5(3) of that regulation, and alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation and misused its powers.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/31

---

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION)

(Case T-353/16)

(2016/C 314/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Social Enterprise Law Association (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Fletcher, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION’ — Application for registration No 14 062 129

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 Aprilie 2016 in Case R 2208/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/31

---

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)

(Case T-361/16)

(2016/C 314/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TBWA\London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MEDIA ARTS LAB’ — Application for registration No 13 238 308

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 958/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for was descriptive and lacked distinctive character for those goods and services for which it was held to be descriptive and lacking in distinctive character; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for was descriptive and lacked distinctive character for those goods and services for which it was held to be descriptive and lacking in distinctive character;

| — | allow the EU trade mark application number 13 238 308 to proceed to publication; and |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the EU trade mark application number 13 238 308 to proceed to publication; and

| — | order the Office to bear its own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to bear its own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The Office has not taken proper account of the services for which the Application has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Office has not taken proper account of the services for which the Application has been made;

| — | The Office has not properly considered the mark applied for as a whole. Rather, it has broken the mark down into parts using definitions of MEDIA ARTS and MEDIA LAB and stated that these parts are descriptive. It has not addressed the effect of the mark as a whole; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Office has not properly considered the mark applied for as a whole. Rather, it has broken the mark down into parts using definitions of MEDIA ARTS and MEDIA LAB and stated that these parts are descriptive. It has not addressed the effect of the mark as a whole;

| — | The Office has failed to accept that the mark is considerably more impenetrable than the PIPELINE decision that they rely upon; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Office has failed to accept that the mark is considerably more impenetrable than the PIPELINE decision that they rely upon;

| — | Despite (and in breach of) the principle of equality of treatment, the Office has not followed its previous practice of accepting marks with the word MEDIA for advertising in combination with other ‘unusual’ locations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Despite (and in breach of) the principle of equality of treatment, the Office has not followed its previous practice of accepting marks with the word MEDIA for advertising in combination with other ‘unusual’ locations.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/32

---

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)

(Case T-362/16)

(2016/C 314/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘XENASA’ — Application for registration No 11 920 055

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 3264/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/33

---

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission

(Case T-369/16)

(2016/C 314/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Luciad (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: D. Arts, P. Smet and I. Panis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium to be admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium to be admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium; 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 its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as there is no measure that distorts or threatens to distort competition.






  — | The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as there is no measure that distorts or threatens to distort competition.

—

The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition.

| — | The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not adversely affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not adversely affect trade between Member States.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not confer any selective advantage.






  — | The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not confer any selective advantage.

—

The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/34

---

Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)

(Case T-372/16)

(2016/C 314/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Männerspielplatz’ — European Union trade mark No 8 534 364

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1796/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts;

| — | In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services;

| — | The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services. |
| --- | --- |

—

The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/35

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission

(Case T-456/12) (1)

(2016/C 314/47)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/35

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission

(Case T-460/12) (1)

(2016/C 314/48)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

---

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/35

---

Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council

(Case T-176/15) (1)

(2016/C 314/49)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.

---