# Official Journal C 343/19 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 343 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5919 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 343

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5919 September 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 343/01 | 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 343/01

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 343/02 | Case C-455/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Decision 2009/906/CFSP — European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina — National staff member on secondment — Redeployment in a regional office of that mission — Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU — First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU — Actions for annulment and compensation — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU) | 2 |
| 2016/C 343/03 | Case C-493/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify — Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption — Article 3(1) — Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme) | 3 |
| 2016/C 343/04 | Case C-526/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Tadej Kotnik and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission — Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU — State aid to banks in the context of the financial crisis — Burden-sharing — Writing off equity capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Right to property — Protection of the interests of shareholders and others — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions) | 3 |
| 2016/C 343/05 | Case C-542/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA VM Remonts (formerly SIA DIV un KO), SIA Ausma grupa v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA Pārtikas kompānija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Purely internal situation — Application of analogous national rules — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concerted practice — Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider — Conditions) | 4 |
| 2016/C 343/06 | Case C-597/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph — Figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark — Proof of the existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier trade mark — Consideration by the Board of Appeal of evidence submitted out of time — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal) | 5 |
| 2016/C 343/07 | Case C-4/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Argos Supply Trading BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Customs procedures with economic impact — Outward processing — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 148(c) — Issue of authorisation — Economic conditions — Absence of serious harm to the essential interests of Community processors — Concept of Community processors) | 6 |
| 2016/C 343/08 | Case C-104/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environmental protection — Directive 2006/21/EC — Waste management — Mining — Tailing ponds — Dust re-emission — Fine airborn dust particles — Pollution — Human health — Obligatory preventative measures — Articles 4 and 13 — Finding of infringement | 6 |
| 2016/C 343/09 | Case C-226/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark English pink — Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements Pink Lady — Opposition dismissed — Decision of an EU trade mark court — Alteration — Res judicata) | 7 |
| 2016/C 343/10 | Case C-341/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Hans Maschek v Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien — Personalstelle Wiener Stadtwerke (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual — Retirement at the request of the party concerned — Worker failing to use up all his entitlement to annual paid leave before the termination of his work relations — National legislation excluding allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken — Sick leave — Public servants) | 7 |
| 2016/C 343/11 | Joined Cases C-387/15 and C-388/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15) v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Natura 2000 site Scheldt and Durme estuary from the Dutch border to Ghent — Development of a port area — Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site — Occurrence of adverse effects — Prior but not yet completed development of an area of an equivalent type to the part destroyed — Completion subsequent to the assessment — Article 6(3) and (4)) | 8 |
| 2016/C 343/12 | Case C-502/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Preliminary ruling — Article 99 of Rules of Procedure of the Court — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annexe II — Validity) | 9 |
| 2016/C 343/13 | Case C-129/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — H.M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(9) — Concept of body governed by public law — Hospital set up to make a profit, whose capital is entirely private — Over 50 % or 30 % of income coming from payments by the public sickness insurance scheme in exchange for the provision of medical services — Article 7(b) — Estimated value of the contract — Threshold not met — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Article 53(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2016/C 343/14 | Case C-214/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA (Preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 55 — Contract notice — Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices — Determination criteria — Article 7(c) — Value of the contract — Threshold not reached — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility) | 10 |
| 2016/C 343/15 | Case C-246/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part) | 11 |
| 2016/C 343/16 | Case C-293/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Slovenská pošta a.s. v European Commission, Slovak Republic, Cromwell a.s, Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public undertakings — Amendment of Slovakian legislation on postal services — Exclusive rights granted to incumbent operator Slovenská pošta a.s. to provide hybrid mail services — Decision declaring those provisions incompatible with Articles 86 EC and 82 EC) | 11 |
| 2016/C 343/17 | Case C-295/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — EU word mark ARKTIS — Application for revocation — Genuine use of the mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Form of use of the mark — Proof of use of the mark — Consent of the proprietor — Partial rejection of the application for revocation) | 12 |
| 2016/C 343/18 | Case C-399/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Vichy Catalán, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hijos de Rivera, SA (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Period within which an action must be brought — Unforeseeable circumstances — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility) | 12 |
| 2016/C 343/19 | Case C-450/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA (Preliminary reference — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction) | 13 |
| 2016/C 343/20 | Case C-456/15: Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Preliminary reference — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method for allocating allowances — Free allocation of allowances — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annex II — Validity) | 13 |
| 2016/C 343/21 | Case C-510/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence — Justification — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment) | 14 |
| 2016/C 343/22 | Case C-523/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Fines — Appraisal of the ability to pay — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Right to effective judicial protection) | 15 |
| 2016/C 343/23 | Case C-604/15 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Ana Pérez Gutiérrez v European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Public health — Photographs proposed by the European Commission for the health warnings to be shown on packaging for tobacco products — Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person) | 15 |
| 2016/C 343/24 | Case C-608/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation — Rights of the defence — Statement of objections — Content) | 16 |
| 2016/C 343/25 | Case C-669/15: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Preliminary ruling — Absence of legal framework — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court) | 16 |
| 2016/C 343/26 | Case C-7/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Assignment of a claim — Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt — Conditions governing the exercise of that right) | 17 |
| 2016/C 343/27 | Case C-55/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Common system of value added tax — Right to reimbursement — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Conditions for obtaining reimbursement — Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 — Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax — Whether permissible) | 17 |
| 2016/C 343/28 | Case C-173/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — M. H. v M. H. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time when a court is seised — Concept of the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court) | 18 |
| 2016/C 343/29 | Case C-238/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2016 — X v Finanzamt I | 18 |
| 2016/C 343/30 | Case C-259/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2016 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico | 19 |
| 2016/C 343/31 | Case C-260/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2016 — Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico | 20 |
| 2016/C 343/32 | Case C-273/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc. | 21 |
| 2016/C 343/33 | Case C-274/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA | 22 |
| 2016/C 343/34 | Case C-290/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. | 22 |
| 2016/C 343/35 | Case C-311/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 May 2016 by Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2016 in Case T-817/14, Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH and Others v European Commission | 23 |
| 2016/C 343/36 | Case C-316/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg | 23 |
| 2016/C 343/37 | Case C-322/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato | 24 |
| 2016/C 343/38 | Case C-326/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2016 by LL against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15 LL v European Parliament | 25 |
| 2016/C 343/39 | Case C-336/16: Action brought on 15 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 27 |
| 2016/C 343/40 | Case C-348/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Sacko Moussa v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano | 28 |
| 2016/C 343/41 | Case C-350/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission | 28 |
| 2016/C 343/42 | Case C-360/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v Aziz Hasan | 30 |
| 2016/C 343/43 | Case C-364/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2016 by Trioplast Industrier AB against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2016 in Case T-669/14: Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission | 31 |
| 2016/C 343/44 | Case C-366/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — H. F. v Belgische Staat | 33 |
| 2016/C 343/45 | Case C-372/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch | 33 |
| 2016/C 343/46 | Case C-382/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau | 34 |
| 2016/C 343/47 | Case C-386/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — UAB Toridas v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos and Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija | 34 |
| 2016/C 343/48 | Case C-387/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija | 35 |
| 2016/C 343/49 | Case C-407/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 July 2016 — SIA Aqua Pro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 36 |
| 2016/C 343/50 | Case C-155/16: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine | 37 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 343/51 | Case T-72/12: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Annulment of the contested acts — No need to adjudicate) | 38 |
| 2016/C 343/52 | Case T-365/16: Action brought on 8 July 2016 — Portigon v SRB | 38 |
| 2016/C 343/53 | Case T-376/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB | 40 |
| 2016/C 343/54 | Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB | 41 |
| 2016/C 343/55 | Case T-395/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder) | 41 |
| 2016/C 343/56 | Case T-404/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package) | 42 |
| 2016/C 343/57 | Case T-407/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p) | 43 |
| 2016/C 343/58 | Case T-418/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package) | 43 |
| 2016/C 343/59 | Case T-419/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera) | 44 |
| 2016/C 343/60 | Case T-421/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma) | 45 |
| 2016/C 343/61 | Case T-422/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama) | 45 |
| 2016/C 343/62 | Case T-425/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius) | 46 |
| 2016/C 343/63 | Case T-427/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE) | 46 |
| 2016/C 343/64 | Case T-428/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER) | 47 |
| 2016/C 343/65 | Case T-429/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL HUSBAND) | 48 |
| 2016/C 343/66 | Case T-438/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI) | 48 |
| 2016/C 343/67 | Case T-506/14: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission | 49 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 343/02

Case C-455/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Decision 2009/906/CFSP — European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina — National staff member on secondment — Redeployment in a regional office of that mission — Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU — First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU — Actions for annulment and compensation — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU)

2

2016/C 343/03

Case C-493/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify — Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption — Article 3(1) — Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme)

3

2016/C 343/04

Case C-526/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Tadej Kotnik and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission — Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU — State aid to banks in the context of the financial crisis — Burden-sharing — Writing off equity capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Right to property — Protection of the interests of shareholders and others — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions)

3

2016/C 343/05

Case C-542/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA VM Remonts (formerly SIA DIV un KO), SIA Ausma grupa v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA Pārtikas kompānija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Purely internal situation — Application of analogous national rules — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concerted practice — Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider — Conditions)

4

2016/C 343/06

Case C-597/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph — Figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark — Proof of the existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier trade mark — Consideration by the Board of Appeal of evidence submitted out of time — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal)

5

2016/C 343/07

Case C-4/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Argos Supply Trading BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Customs procedures with economic impact — Outward processing — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 148(c) — Issue of authorisation — Economic conditions — Absence of serious harm to the essential interests of Community processors — Concept of Community processors)

6

2016/C 343/08

Case C-104/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environmental protection — Directive 2006/21/EC — Waste management — Mining — Tailing ponds — Dust re-emission — Fine airborn dust particles — Pollution — Human health — Obligatory preventative measures — Articles 4 and 13 — Finding of infringement

6

2016/C 343/09

Case C-226/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark English pink — Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements Pink Lady — Opposition dismissed — Decision of an EU trade mark court — Alteration — Res judicata)

7

2016/C 343/10

Case C-341/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Hans Maschek v Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien — Personalstelle Wiener Stadtwerke (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual — Retirement at the request of the party concerned — Worker failing to use up all his entitlement to annual paid leave before the termination of his work relations — National legislation excluding allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken — Sick leave — Public servants)

7

2016/C 343/11

Joined Cases C-387/15 and C-388/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15) v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Natura 2000 site Scheldt and Durme estuary from the Dutch border to Ghent — Development of a port area — Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site — Occurrence of adverse effects — Prior but not yet completed development of an area of an equivalent type to the part destroyed — Completion subsequent to the assessment — Article 6(3) and (4))

8

2016/C 343/12

Case C-502/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Preliminary ruling — Article 99 of Rules of Procedure of the Court — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annexe II — Validity)

9

2016/C 343/13

Case C-129/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — H.M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(9) — Concept of body governed by public law — Hospital set up to make a profit, whose capital is entirely private — Over 50 % or 30 % of income coming from payments by the public sickness insurance scheme in exchange for the provision of medical services — Article 7(b) — Estimated value of the contract — Threshold not met — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Article 53(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

10

2016/C 343/14

Case C-214/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA (Preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 55 — Contract notice — Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices — Determination criteria — Article 7(c) — Value of the contract — Threshold not reached — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility)

10

2016/C 343/15

Case C-246/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) — Decision finding no State aid — Formal investigation procedure not initiated — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

11

2016/C 343/16

Case C-293/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Slovenská pošta a.s. v European Commission, Slovak Republic, Cromwell a.s, Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public undertakings — Amendment of Slovakian legislation on postal services — Exclusive rights granted to incumbent operator Slovenská pošta a.s. to provide hybrid mail services — Decision declaring those provisions incompatible with Articles 86 EC and 82 EC)

11

2016/C 343/17

Case C-295/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — EU word mark ARKTIS — Application for revocation — Genuine use of the mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Form of use of the mark — Proof of use of the mark — Consent of the proprietor — Partial rejection of the application for revocation)

12

2016/C 343/18

Case C-399/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Vichy Catalán, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hijos de Rivera, SA (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Period within which an action must be brought — Unforeseeable circumstances — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

12

2016/C 343/19

Case C-450/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA (Preliminary reference — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2)(a) — Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality — Determination of the amount of the fine — Criteria — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — National practice — Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine — Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances — Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover — Absence of jurisdiction of the Court — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

13

2016/C 343/20

Case C-456/15: Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Preliminary reference — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method for allocating allowances — Free allocation of allowances — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annex II — Validity)

13

2016/C 343/21

Case C-510/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence — Justification — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)

14

2016/C 343/22

Case C-523/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Fines — Appraisal of the ability to pay — The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment — Right to effective judicial protection)

15

2016/C 343/23

Case C-604/15 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Ana Pérez Gutiérrez v European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Public health — Photographs proposed by the European Commission for the health warnings to be shown on packaging for tobacco products — Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person)

15

2016/C 343/24

Case C-608/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation — Rights of the defence — Statement of objections — Content)

16

2016/C 343/25

Case C-669/15: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Preliminary ruling — Absence of legal framework — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

16

2016/C 343/26

Case C-7/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Assignment of a claim — Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt — Conditions governing the exercise of that right)

17

2016/C 343/27

Case C-55/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Common system of value added tax — Right to reimbursement — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Conditions for obtaining reimbursement — Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 — Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax — Whether permissible)

17

2016/C 343/28

Case C-173/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — M. H. v M. H. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time when a court is seised — Concept of the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court)

18

2016/C 343/29

Case C-238/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2016 — X v Finanzamt I

18

2016/C 343/30

Case C-259/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2016 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

19

2016/C 343/31

Case C-260/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2016 — Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

20

2016/C 343/32

Case C-273/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

21

2016/C 343/33

Case C-274/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

22

2016/C 343/34

Case C-290/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

22

2016/C 343/35

Case C-311/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 May 2016 by Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2016 in Case T-817/14, Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH and Others v European Commission

23

2016/C 343/36

Case C-316/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg

23

2016/C 343/37

Case C-322/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

24

2016/C 343/38

Case C-326/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2016 by LL against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15 LL v European Parliament

25

2016/C 343/39

Case C-336/16: Action brought on 15 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

27

2016/C 343/40

Case C-348/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Sacko Moussa v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano

28

2016/C 343/41

Case C-350/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission

28

2016/C 343/42

Case C-360/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v Aziz Hasan

30

2016/C 343/43

Case C-364/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2016 by Trioplast Industrier AB against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2016 in Case T-669/14: Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission

31

2016/C 343/44

Case C-366/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — H. F. v Belgische Staat

33

2016/C 343/45

Case C-372/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

33

2016/C 343/46

Case C-382/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau

34

2016/C 343/47

Case C-386/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — UAB Toridas v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos and Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

UAB Toridas

Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos and Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

34

2016/C 343/48

Case C-387/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

35

2016/C 343/49

Case C-407/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 July 2016 — SIA Aqua Pro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

36

2016/C 343/50

Case C-155/16: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

37

General Court

2016/C 343/51

Case T-72/12: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Annulment of the contested acts — No need to adjudicate)

38

2016/C 343/52

Case T-365/16: Action brought on 8 July 2016 — Portigon v SRB

38

2016/C 343/53

Case T-376/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB

40

2016/C 343/54

Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

41

2016/C 343/55

Case T-395/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)

41

2016/C 343/56

Case T-404/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package)

42

2016/C 343/57

Case T-407/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)

43

2016/C 343/58

Case T-418/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)

43

2016/C 343/59

Case T-419/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera)

44

2016/C 343/60

Case T-421/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)

45

2016/C 343/61

Case T-422/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)

45

2016/C 343/62

Case T-425/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius)

46

2016/C 343/63

Case T-427/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE)

46

2016/C 343/64

Case T-428/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)

47

2016/C 343/65

Case T-429/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL HUSBAND)

48

2016/C 343/66

Case T-438/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

48

2016/C 343/67

Case T-506/14: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/1

---

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

(2016/C 343/01)

Last publication

OJ C 335, 12.9.2016

Past publications

OJ C 326, 5.9.2016

OJ C 314, 29.8.2016

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina

(Case C-455/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Decision 2009/906/CFSP - European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina - National staff member on secondment - Redeployment in a regional office of that mission - Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU - First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU - Actions for annulment and compensation - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU))

(2016/C 343/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, G. Gattinara and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents), European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 July 2014 in H v Council and Others (T-271/10, not published, EU:T:2014:702); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 July 2014 in H v Council and Others (T-271/10, not published, EU:T:2014:702);

| 2. | Dismisses H’s action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission and the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses H’s action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission and the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the substance of the action in so far as it is directed against the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the substance of the action in so far as it is directed against the Council of the European Union;

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

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-493/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify - Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption - Article 3(1) - Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme))

(2016/C 343/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that the absence, in an aid scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of an express reference to that regulation, by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union, precludes that scheme from being considered to fulfil the conditions for exemption, under Article 25(1) of that regulation, from the obligation to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Tadej Kotnik and Others v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

(Case C-526/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission - Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU - State aid to banks in the context of the financial crisis - Burden-sharing - Writing off equity capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Right to property - Protection of the interests of shareholders and others - Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions))

(2016/C 343/04)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tadej Kotnik, Marko Studen, Anton Glavan, Jože Sedonja, Primož Kozmus, Savaprojekt d.d., Fondazione cassa di risparmio di Imola, Andrej Pipuš, Dušanka Pipuš, Marija Pipuš, Tomaž Štrukelj, Luka Jukič, Angel Jaromil, Franc Marušič, Mladen Mladenić, Matjaž Matičič, Stajka Skrbinšek, Janez Forte, Zdenko Fritz, Sergej Garantini, Marijana Gošte, Marta Leskovar, Marija Šumi, Državni svet Republike Slovenije, Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije, Igor Karlovšek, Marija Karlovšek, Janez Gosar

Defendant: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

Interveners: Vlada Republike Slovenije, Banka Slovenije, Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 August 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) must be interpreted as meaning that it is not binding on the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 August 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) must be interpreted as meaning that it is not binding on the Member States.

| 2. | Articles 107 to 109 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 107 to 109 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid.

| 3. | The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to property must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to property must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid.

| 4. | Articles 29, 34, 35 and 40 to 42 of Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Articles 29, 34, 35 and 40 to 42 of Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, must be interpreted as not precluding points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication in so far as those points lay down a condition of burden-sharing by shareholders and holders of subordinated rights as a prerequisite to the authorisation of State aid.

| 5. | The Banking Communication must be interpreted as meaning that the measures for converting hybrid capital and subordinate debt or writing down their principal, as provided for in point 44 of that communication, must not exceed what is necessary to overcome the capital short-fall of the bank concerned. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Banking Communication must be interpreted as meaning that the measures for converting hybrid capital and subordinate debt or writing down their principal, as provided for in point 44 of that communication, must not exceed what is necessary to overcome the capital short-fall of the bank concerned.

| 6. | The seventh indent of Article 2 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that burden-sharing measures such as those provided for in points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication fall within the scope of the concept of ‘reorganisation measures’, within the meaning of that provision of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The seventh indent of Article 2 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that burden-sharing measures such as those provided for in points 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication fall within the scope of the concept of ‘reorganisation measures’, within the meaning of that provision of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

(Case C-542/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Purely internal situation - Application of analogous national rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concerted practice - Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider - Conditions))

(2016/C 343/05)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā Tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, Konkurences padome

Respondents: Konkurences padome, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may, in principle, be held liable for a concerted practice on account of the acts of an independent service provider supplying it with services only if one of the following conditions is met:

| — | the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or |
| --- | --- |

—

the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or

| — | that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or |
| --- | --- |

—

that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or

| — | that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed. |
| --- | --- |

—

that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 16.12.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer

(Case C-597/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph - Figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark - Proof of the existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier trade mark - Consideration by the Board of Appeal of evidence submitted out of time - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal))

(2016/C 343/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Argos Supply Trading BV

(Case C-4/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Customs procedures with economic impact - Outward processing - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 148(c) - Issue of authorisation - Economic conditions - Absence of serious harm to the essential interests of Community processors - Concept of ‘Community processors’))

(2016/C 343/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Argos Supply Trading BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a request for authorisation to use the outward processing procedure, in order to assess whether the economic conditions governing the use of that procedure are satisfied, it is necessary to take account not only of the essential interests of Community producers of products analogous to the finished product resulting from the envisaged processing operations, but also of those of Community producers of products analogous to the basic products or to the intermediate non-EU products intended to be incorporated in the Community goods temporarily exported during those operations.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-104/15) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environmental protection - Directive 2006/21/EC - Waste management - Mining - Tailing ponds - Dust re-emission - Fine airborn dust particles - Pollution - Human health - Obligatory preventative measures - Articles 4 and 13 - Finding of infringement)

(2016/C 343/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae, E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania (represented by: R. H. Radu, E. Gane, A. Buzoianu and R. Haţieganu, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent dust rising from the Boșneag pond — extension, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent dust rising from the Boșneag pond — extension, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.

| 2. | Orders Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA

(Case C-226/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark English pink - Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements ‘Pink Lady’ - Opposition dismissed - Decision of an EU trade mark court - Alteration - Res judicata))

(2016/C 343/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, and P. Péters, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Carolus C. BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Hans Maschek v Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien — Personalstelle Wiener Stadtwerke

(Case C-341/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual - Retirement at the request of the party concerned - Worker failing to use up all his entitlement to annual paid leave before the termination of his work relations - National legislation excluding allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken - Sick leave - Public servants))

(2016/C 343/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Hans Maschek

Respondent: Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien — Personalstelle Wiener Stadtwerke

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, must be interpreted:

| — | as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which deprives the worker, whose employment relationship was terminated following his request for retirement, of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken and who has not been able to use up his rights to paid annual leave before the end of that employment relationship; |
| --- | --- |

—

as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which deprives the worker, whose employment relationship was terminated following his request for retirement, of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken and who has not been able to use up his rights to paid annual leave before the end of that employment relationship;

| — | as meaning that a worker is entitled, on retirement, to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was prevented from working by sickness; |
| --- | --- |

—

as meaning that a worker is entitled, on retirement, to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was prevented from working by sickness;

| — | as meaning that a worker whose employment relationship has ended and who, pursuant to an agreement with his employer, while continuing to receive his salary, was required not to report to his place of work during a specified period preceding his retirement, is not entitled to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken during this period, unless he was not able to use up that entitlement due to illness; |
| --- | --- |

—

as meaning that a worker whose employment relationship has ended and who, pursuant to an agreement with his employer, while continuing to receive his salary, was required not to report to his place of work during a specified period preceding his retirement, is not entitled to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken during this period, unless he was not able to use up that entitlement due to illness;

| — | as meaning that it is, on the one hand, for the Member States to decide whether to grant workers additional paid leave in addition to the minimum annual paid leave of four weeks provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. In that case, the Member States may grant to a worker who, because of illness, could not use up all of his additional paid annual leave before the end of his employment relationship, an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of that additional period. It is, on the other hand, for the Member States to determine the conditions for granting that entitlement. |
| --- | --- |

—

as meaning that it is, on the one hand, for the Member States to decide whether to grant workers additional paid leave in addition to the minimum annual paid leave of four weeks provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. In that case, the Member States may grant to a worker who, because of illness, could not use up all of his additional paid annual leave before the end of his employment relationship, an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of that additional period. It is, on the other hand, for the Member States to determine the conditions for granting that entitlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15) v Vlaams Gewest

(Joined Cases C-387/15 and C-388/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Natura 2000 site ‘Scheldt and Durme estuary from the Dutch border to Ghent’ - Development of a port area - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Occurrence of adverse effects - Prior but not yet completed development of an area of an equivalent type to the part destroyed - Completion subsequent to the assessment - Article 6(3) and (4)))

(2016/C 343/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15)

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervening party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that measures, contained in a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site of Community importance, providing, prior to the occurrence of adverse effects on a natural habitat type present thereon, for the future creation of an area of that type, but the completion of which will take place subsequently to the assessment of the significance of any adverse effects on the integrity of that site, may not be taken into consideration in that assessment. Such measures can be categorised as ‘compensatory measures’, within the meaning of Article 6(4), only if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-502/14) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Article 99 of Rules of Procedure of the Court - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(5) - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge - Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 15(3) - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annexe II - Validity))

(2016/C 343/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Buzzi Unicem SpA, Colacem SpA, Cogne Acciai Speciali SpA, Olon SpA, Laterlite SpA

Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in so far as that provision precludes emissions from electricity generators from being taken into account in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in so far as that provision precludes emissions from electricity generators from being taken into account in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances.

| 2. | Article 4 of and Annex II to Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4 of and Annex II to Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.

| 3. | The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are to be limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016 in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311) so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are to be limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016 in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311) so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — H.M. v Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)

(Case C-129/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(9) - Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ - Hospital set up to make a profit, whose capital is entirely private - Over 50 % or 30 % of income coming from payments by the public sickness insurance scheme in exchange for the provision of medical services - Article 7(b) - Estimated value of the contract - Threshold not met - Certain cross-border interest - Lack of information - Article 53(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 343/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.M.

Defendant: Agentsia za darzhavna finansova inspektsia (ADFI)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria) by decision of 4 March 2015 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA

(Case C-214/15) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 55 - Contract notice - Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices - Determination criteria - Article 7(c) - Value of the contract - Threshold not reached - Certain cross-border interest - Lack of information - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 343/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar

Defendant: Sá Machado & Filhos SA

In the presence of: Norcep Construções e Empreendimentos Lda

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 9 April 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/11

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Land Hessen

(Case C-246/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in Land Hessen (Germany) - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part))

(2016/C 343/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents), Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész and A. Richter, lawyers)

Operative part of the order

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

1)

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2) | Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/11

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Slovenská pošta a.s. v European Commission, Slovak Republic, Cromwell a.s, Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.)

(Case C-293/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public undertakings - Amendment of Slovakian legislation on postal services - Exclusive rights granted to incumbent operator Slovenská pošta a.s. to provide ‘hybrid’ mail services - Decision declaring those provisions incompatible with Articles 86 EC and 82 EC))

(2016/C 343/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, R. Sauer and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic, (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Slovenská pošta a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Slovenská pošta a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/12

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita

(Case C-295/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - EU word mark ARKTIS - Application for revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Form of use of the mark - Proof of use of the mark - Consent of the proprietor - Partial rejection of the application for revocation))

(2016/C 343/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Matratzen Concord GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Matratzen Concord GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/12

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Vichy Catalán, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hijos de Rivera, SA

(Case C-399/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Period within which an action must be brought - Unforeseeable circumstances - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 343/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Vichy Catalán, SA (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent), Hijos de Rivera, SA (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, abogada)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Vichy Catalán SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vichy Catalán SA shall pay the costs.

| 3. | Hijos de Rivera SA shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Hijos de Rivera SA shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/13

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

(Case C-450/15) (1)

((Preliminary reference - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2)(a) - Interpretation in the light of the principle of proportionality - Determination of the amount of the fine - Criteria - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - National practice - Adjustment of the basic amount of the fine - Account to be taken of aggravating or extenuating circumstances - Application of the maximum limit of 10 % of total turnover - Absence of jurisdiction of the Court - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2016/C 343/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

Operative part of the order

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decision of 16 June 2015.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/13

---

Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-456/15) (1)

((Preliminary reference - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(5) - Method for allocating allowances - Free allocation of allowances - Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 15(3) - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annex II - Validity))

(2016/C 343/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BASF SE

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Examination of the first and second questions has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council inasmuch as that provision excludes the taking into account of the emissions of electricity generators for the purpose of determining the maximum annual amount of allowances. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Examination of the first and second questions has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council inasmuch as that provision excludes the taking into account of the emissions of electricity generators for the purpose of determining the maximum annual amount of allowances.

| 2. | Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.

| 3. | The effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 shall be limited in time in such a way, first, that that declaration shall take effect only at the end of a period of ten months from the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016, Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C–192/14, C–295/14, C–389/14 and C–391/14 to C–393/14, EU:C:2016:311), in order to allow the European Commission to proceed with the adoption of the necessary measures and, secondly, that the measures adopted up to that point on the basis of the provisions declared invalid cannot be brought into question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 shall be limited in time in such a way, first, that that declaration shall take effect only at the end of a period of ten months from the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016, Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C–192/14, C–295/14, C–389/14 and C–391/14 to C–393/14, EU:C:2016:311), in order to allow the European Commission to proceed with the adoption of the necessary measures and, secondly, that the measures adopted up to that point on the basis of the provisions declared invalid cannot be brought into question.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/14

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission

(Case C-510/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence - Justification - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))

(2016/C 343/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Szczodrowski, Agents, and by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, avocats)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/15

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-523/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Appraisal of the ability to pay - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Taking into account facts subsequent to the contested decision - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment - Right to effective judicial protection))

(2016/C 343/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Stadler, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/15

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Ana Pérez Gutiérrez v European Commission

(Case C-604/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Public health - Photographs proposed by the European Commission for the health warnings to be shown on packaging for tobacco products - Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person))

(2016/C 343/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ana Pérez Gutiérrez (represented by: J. Soler Puebla, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Tomkin, Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mrs Ana Pérez Gutiérrez shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mrs Ana Pérez Gutiérrez shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/16

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission

(Case C-608/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation - Rights of the defence - Statement of objections - Content))

(2016/C 343/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Panasonic Corp. (represented by: R. Gerrits, advocaat, M. Hoskins QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Panasonic Corp. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Panasonic Corp. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/16

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

(Case C-669/15) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Absence of legal framework - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))

(2016/C 343/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

Defendant: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Cour d'appel de Versailles (France), by decision of 8 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/17

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz

(Case C-7/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Assignment of a claim - Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt - Conditions governing the exercise of that right))

(2016/C 343/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL

Defendants: María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the right of the person owing a debt that has been assigned by the creditor to a third party to extinguish his debt by reimbursing to that third party the price paid by the latter in respect of that assignment.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/17

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

(Case C-55/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common system of value added tax - Right to reimbursement - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Conditions for obtaining reimbursement - Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 - Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax - Whether permissible))

(2016/C 343/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Evo Bus GmbH

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

Operative part of the order

Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of value added tax, taxable persons are subject to a general obligation to provide proof of payment of that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/18

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — M. H. v M. H.

(Case C-173/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - No reasonable doubt - Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 16(1)(a) - Determination of the time when a court is seised - Concept of ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’))

(2016/C 343/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. H.

Defendant: M. H.

Operative part of the order

Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that the ‘time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’, within the meaning of that provision, is the time when that document is lodged with the court concerned, even if under national law lodging that document does not of itself immediately initiate proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2016 — X v Finanzamt I

(Case C-238/16)

(2016/C 343/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Finanzamt I

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of human blood also encompasses the supply of blood plasma obtained from human blood? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of human blood also encompasses the supply of blood plasma obtained from human blood?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does this also apply with regard to blood plasma that is not intended to be used directly for therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does this also apply with regard to blood plasma that is not intended to be used directly for therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood dependent solely on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood dependent solely on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put?

| 4. | If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: does a transaction, which is exempt from VAT within a Member State under Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, irrespective of the rules on VAT applicable in a third country, lead to the exclusion of the entitlement to deduct input tax under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, even if that transaction constitutes a supply of goods to a third country for which the deduction applies under Article 169(b) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 146(1) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: does a transaction, which is exempt from VAT within a Member State under Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, irrespective of the rules on VAT applicable in a third country, lead to the exclusion of the entitlement to deduct input tax under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, even if that transaction constitutes a supply of goods to a third country for which the deduction applies under Article 169(b) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 146(1) thereof?

---

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 May 2016 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-259/16)

(2016/C 343/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra), Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporti Automobilistici, Società Fercam SpA, Associazione non Riconosciuta Alsea, Associazione Fedit, Società Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali Srl, Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Spedizioni Internazionali — Associazione Fedespedi, Società Tnt Global Express SpA

Respondents: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law, in particular Article [2].1, 2.1a and 2.6 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, (2) preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 2(a) and (f) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999, and Article 1(1)(g) and (r), in conjunction with each other and subparagraph (i), of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they are intended to bring the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers also within the scope of postal services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law, in particular Article [2].1, 2.1a and 2.6 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, (2) preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 2(a) and (f) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999, and Article 1(1)(g) and (r), in conjunction with each other and subparagraph (i), of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they are intended to bring the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers also within the scope of postal services?

| 2. | Does EU law, in particular Articles 9(1) and [2].19 of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999 and Article 8 of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the requirement to obtain a general authorisation in addition to the authorisation required to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements regarding the supply of postal services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law, in particular Articles 9(1) and [2].19 of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999 and Article 8 of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the requirement to obtain a general authorisation in addition to the authorisation required to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements regarding the supply of postal services?

| 3. | Does EU law, in particular Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6(1bis) and 10(2) of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the burden of contributing to the compensation fund for the universal service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does EU law, in particular Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6(1bis) and 10(2) of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the burden of contributing to the compensation fund for the universal service?

| 4. | Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets?

---

(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).

(2)  Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2016 — Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-260/16)

(2016/C 343/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Aicai Associazione Italiana Corrieri Aerei Internazionali, Società Dhl Express (Italy) Srl, Federal Express Europe Inc., Società United Parcel Service Italia Ups Srl

Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Ministry of Economic Development)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law, in particular Article [2].1, 2.1a and 2.6 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, (2) preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 2(a) and (f) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999, and Article 1(1)(g) and (r), in conjunction with each other and subparagraph (i), of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they are intended to bring the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers also within the scope of postal services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law, in particular Article [2].1, 2.1a and 2.6 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, (2) preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 2(a) and (f) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999, and Article 1(1)(g) and (r), in conjunction with each other and subparagraph (i), of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they are intended to bring the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers also within the scope of postal services?

| 2. | Does EU law, in particular Articles 9(1) and [2].19 of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999 and Article 8 of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the requirement to obtain a general authorisation in addition to the authorisation required to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements regarding the supply of postal services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law, in particular Articles 9(1) and [2].19 of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Article 6(1) of Legislative Decree No [261]/1999 and Article 8 of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015 and the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of the services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the requirement to obtain a general authorisation in addition to the authorisation required to guarantee compliance with the essential requirements regarding the supply of postal services?

| 3. | Does EU law, in particular Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6(1bis) and 10(2) of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the burden of contributing to the compensation fund for the universal service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does EU law, in particular Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, preclude the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6(1bis) and 10(2) of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, set out in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’ referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they impose on the suppliers of services of road hauliers, freight-forwarders and express couriers the burden of contributing to the compensation fund for the universal service?

| 4. | Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets?

---

(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).

(2)  Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

(Case C-273/16)

(2016/C 343/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law and cross-respondent on a point of law: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent on a point of law and cross-appellant on a point of law: Federal Express Europe Inc.

Question referred

Can Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) (corresponding to Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 11.B(3) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (2)), taken together, be interpreted to mean that the only condition in order for connected services consisting of the ‘inbound’ transport service — from airports to the place of destination within the territory of the Member State, with the ‘free-at-destination’ clause — not to be liable to VAT is that their value is included in the taxable amount, regardless of whether or not the goods in question were in fact subject to customs duties, at the time of their importation; and is it therefore incompatible with those EU-law provisions if the domestic rules laid down in Articles 9(1).2 and 69(1) of Presidential Decree No 33 of 26 October 1972, read together in the versions in force at the time of the material facts, provide that in every case, and therefore also in the case of imports that are not liable to VAT — as is the case here, since it concerns documents and goods of negligible value — there has to be compliance with the additional requirement that those imports must in fact be liable to VAT (and customs duty must in fact be paid) at the time of the importation of such goods, even, if need be, when account is taken of the ancillary nature of the transport services in relation to the main services (namely the importation) and of the rationale of simplification underlying both the main and the ancillary operations?

---

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

(2)  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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2016 — flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

(Case C-274/16)

(2016/C 343/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

Question referred

In the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the place of arrival of the second leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place of performance under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 (1) in the case where the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated the first leg of the journey on which the irregularity took place and transport on the second leg of the journey was carried out by a different air carrier?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-290/16)

(2016/C 343/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the third sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that air carriers must specify the actual amount of taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees listed in points (b), (c) and (d) when publishing their air fares and therefore may not partially include them in their air fares in accordance with point (a) of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the third sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that air carriers must specify the actual amount of taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees listed in points (b), (c) and (d) when publishing their air fares and therefore may not partially include them in their air fares in accordance with point (a) of that provision?

| 2. | Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national law on standard business conditions, which has its basis in Union law, according to which a separate handling fee cannot be imposed on customers who have not taken a flight or cancelled a flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national law on standard business conditions, which has its basis in Union law, according to which a separate handling fee cannot be imposed on customers who have not taken a flight or cancelled a flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/23

---

Appeal brought on 20 May 2016 by Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2016 in Case T-817/14, Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH and Others v European Commission

(Case C-311/16 P)

(2016/C 343/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: E. Hauk, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

This case was removed from the register of the Court by order of the Court of 20 July 2016.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-316/16)

(2016/C 343/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it outright impossible for the imposition and subsequent implementation of a custodial penalty to have the result that the integrating links of a Union citizen who entered the host Member State at the age of three must be considered to be broken, with the consequence that there is no uninterrupted period of residence of 10 years for the purposes of Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and therefore that there is no requirement to grant him protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38, if that Union citizen has, since entering the host Member State at the age of three, spent his entire life there and no longer has any ties to the Member State of his nationality, and the offence that resulted in imposition and implementation of a custodial sentence was committed only after he had been resident for 20 years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it outright impossible for the imposition and subsequent implementation of a custodial penalty to have the result that the integrating links of a Union citizen who entered the host Member State at the age of three must be considered to be broken, with the consequence that there is no uninterrupted period of residence of 10 years for the purposes of Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and therefore that there is no requirement to grant him protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38, if that Union citizen has, since entering the host Member State at the age of three, spent his entire life there and no longer has any ties to the Member State of his nationality, and the offence that resulted in imposition and implementation of a custodial sentence was committed only after he had been resident for 20 years?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: With regard to the question of whether implementation of a custodial penalty leads to the breaking of integration links, must the custodial penalty imposed in respect of the offence giving rise to the expulsion be disregarded? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: With regard to the question of whether implementation of a custodial penalty leads to the breaking of integration links, must the custodial penalty imposed in respect of the offence giving rise to the expulsion be disregarded?

| 3. | If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: What criteria are to be used to determine whether the Union citizen affected in such a case nevertheless benefits from protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: What criteria are to be used to determine whether the Union citizen affected in such a case nevertheless benefits from protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38?

| 4. | If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: Are there mandatory provisions of EU law for determining ‘the precise point in time at which the question of expulsion arises’ and the point in time at which an overall assessment must be made of the affected Union citizen’s situation in order to establish the extent to which the non-continuous nature of the period of residence in the ten years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned prevents him from enjoying enhanced protection against expulsion? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: Are there mandatory provisions of EU law for determining ‘the precise point in time at which the question of expulsion arises’ and the point in time at which an overall assessment must be made of the affected Union citizen’s situation in order to establish the extent to which the non-continuous nature of the period of residence in the ten years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned prevents him from enjoying enhanced protection against expulsion?

---

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

(Case C-322/16)

(2016/C 343/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Global Starnet Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

Questions referred

| 1. | May Article 267(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the court of final instance is not unconditionally obliged to refer a question on the interpretation of EU law for a preliminary ruling if, in the course of the proceedings in question, the Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) assessed the constitutional lawfulness of the national rules, in essence on the basis of the regulatory parameters which the Court of Justice is being asked to interpret, even though they are formally different in that they derive from provisions of the Constitution rather than from provisions of the European Treaties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May Article 267(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the court of final instance is not unconditionally obliged to refer a question on the interpretation of EU law for a preliminary ruling if, in the course of the proceedings in question, the Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) assessed the constitutional lawfulness of the national rules, in essence on the basis of the regulatory parameters which the Court of Justice is being asked to interpret, even though they are formally different in that they derive from provisions of the Constitution rather than from provisions of the European Treaties?

| 2. | In the alternative, in the event that the Court answers the question on the interpretation of Article 267(3) TFEU to the effect that reference for a preliminary ruling is compulsory: do the provisions and principles set out in Article 26 TFEU (The internal market), Article 49 TFEU (Right of establishment), Article 56 TFEU (Freedom to provide services), Article 63 TFEU (Free movement of capital) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Freedom to conduct a business) and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (which ‘is among the fundamental principles of the European Union’, as stated by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 14 March 2013 in Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle, C-545/11) preclude the adoption and application of national regulations (Article 1(78)(b), subsections 4, 8, 9, 17, 23 and 25, of Law No 220/2010) which lay down new requirements and obligations for concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, including existing concession holders, by means of an addendum to the existing agreement (and without any period for gradual compliance)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court answers the question on the interpretation of Article 267(3) TFEU to the effect that reference for a preliminary ruling is compulsory: do the provisions and principles set out in Article 26 TFEU (The internal market), Article 49 TFEU (Right of establishment), Article 56 TFEU (Freedom to provide services), Article 63 TFEU (Free movement of capital) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Freedom to conduct a business) and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (which ‘is among the fundamental principles of the European Union’, as stated by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 14 March 2013 in Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle, C-545/11) preclude the adoption and application of national regulations (Article 1(78)(b), subsections 4, 8, 9, 17, 23 and 25, of Law No 220/2010) which lay down new requirements and obligations for concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, including existing concession holders, by means of an addendum to the existing agreement (and without any period for gradual compliance)?

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/25

---

Appeal brought on 9 July 2016 by LL against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15 LL v European Parliament

(Case C-326/16 P)

(2016/C 343/38)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, advokatas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action for annulment, first, of Decision D(2014) 15503 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 April 2014, by which repayment of the parliamentary assistance allowance wrongly paid to him was required, and secondly, of Debit Note No 2014-575 of 5 May 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action for annulment, first, of Decision D(2014) 15503 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 April 2014, by which repayment of the parliamentary assistance allowance wrongly paid to him was required, and secondly, of Debit Note No 2014-575 of 5 May 2014;

| — | refer the case back for fresh examination. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back for fresh examination.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on five pleas in support of his appeal.

| 1. | In making the order, the General Court of the European Union did not examine and assess thoroughly, correctly, comprehensively and objectively all the written evidence submitted together with the application that was of relevance in order to establish properly and correctly the time limit for instituting proceedings, and therefore conclusions contrary to the material in the file and to the legal provisions specified in the appeal were drawn in the order, inter alia that ‘[the] action was brought more than 17 months after that last date’, ‘... the applicant has not established or even referred to the existence of ... circumstances which would allow a derogation from the time limit in question on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union ...’ and ‘... the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time ...’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In making the order, the General Court of the European Union did not examine and assess thoroughly, correctly, comprehensively and objectively all the written evidence submitted together with the application that was of relevance in order to establish properly and correctly the time limit for instituting proceedings, and therefore conclusions contrary to the material in the file and to the legal provisions specified in the appeal were drawn in the order, inter alia that ‘[the] action was brought more than 17 months after that last date’, ‘... the applicant has not established or even referred to the existence of ... circumstances which would allow a derogation from the time limit in question on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union ...’ and ‘... the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time ...’.

| 2. | In the order, the General Court did not apply Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union properly, and also infringed Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and assessed incorrectly the possibilities of applying Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union:






  — | since the appellant, as a former Member of the European Parliament, did not agree with the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament (and the debit note adopted on its basis) and considered that it was unfounded, he exercised his right and fulfilled the requirements laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, submitting a complaint concerning the decision first to the Quaestors and then to the Bureau and the President of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In the order, the General Court did not apply Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union properly, and also infringed Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and assessed incorrectly the possibilities of applying Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

—

since the appellant, as a former Member of the European Parliament, did not agree with the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament (and the debit note adopted on its basis) and considered that it was unfounded, he exercised his right and fulfilled the requirements laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, submitting a complaint concerning the decision first to the Quaestors and then to the Bureau and the President of the European Parliament;

| — | it was only subsequently, when on 10 September 2015 the appellant received an email from a representative of the European Parliament and with it, amongst other documents, final letter No 311354 of 26 June 2015 from the President of the European Parliament pursuant to Article 72(3) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, that the appellant’s right arose to bring an action before the General Court for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and of the debit note adopted on its basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

it was only subsequently, when on 10 September 2015 the appellant received an email from a representative of the European Parliament and with it, amongst other documents, final letter No 311354 of 26 June 2015 from the President of the European Parliament pursuant to Article 72(3) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, that the appellant’s right arose to bring an action before the General Court for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and of the debit note adopted on its basis;

| — | it was specifically on the day on which final letter No 311354 of 26 June 2015 from the President of the European Parliament pursuant to Article 72(3) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament was received, that is to say, on 10 September 2015, that, under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the two-month period began to run within which the appellant could institute proceedings before the General Court for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and of the debit note adopted on its basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

it was specifically on the day on which final letter No 311354 of 26 June 2015 from the President of the European Parliament pursuant to Article 72(3) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament was received, that is to say, on 10 September 2015, that, under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the two-month period began to run within which the appellant could institute proceedings before the General Court for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and of the debit note adopted on its basis;

| — | in view of this and pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the period for instituting proceedings before the General Court came to an end on 10 December 2015. The application was received at the Registry of the General Court on 4 November 2015. This means that the two-month period for instituting proceedings, laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, was not breached and such an action was not lodged ‘out of time’; |
| --- | --- |

—

in view of this and pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the period for instituting proceedings before the General Court came to an end on 10 December 2015. The application was received at the Registry of the General Court on 4 November 2015. This means that the two-month period for instituting proceedings, laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, was not breached and such an action was not lodged ‘out of time’;

| — | in the order, the General Court did not assess at all the documents and circumstances referred to or the provisions of Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, provisions which the appellant observed and on the basis of which he lodged a complaint against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and the debit note under a pre-litigation procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the order, the General Court did not assess at all the documents and circumstances referred to or the provisions of Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, provisions which the appellant observed and on the basis of which he lodged a complaint against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and the debit note under a pre-litigation procedure;

| — | by the order, the General Court not only infringed the appellant’s rights and interests, but also applied Article 263 TFEU incorrectly, and in addition infringed Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

by the order, the General Court not only infringed the appellant’s rights and interests, but also applied Article 263 TFEU incorrectly, and in addition infringed Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament;

| — | furthermore, in the order the General Court found incorrectly and without foundation that there was no possibility of applying Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The implementation of the procedure for pre-litigation examination of the dispute, the appellant’s active, careful, attentive and conscientious conduct, the time at which documents were received and other circumstances confirm that in the case under consideration, even if it were decided that the period for instituting proceedings was exceeded, the period would have to be renewed, as it was exceeded for important, objective and justifiable reasons, namely observance of the procedure laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (first paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice). The appellant could not know that observance of the compulsory procedure laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament may mean that he loses his right to institute proceedings before the General Court (second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice). It is to be noted that in the application the appellant also raised later the issue whether the decisions of the Quaestors and the Bureau of the European Parliament adopted pursuant to Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament were well founded and lawful. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, in the order the General Court found incorrectly and without foundation that there was no possibility of applying Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The implementation of the procedure for pre-litigation examination of the dispute, the appellant’s active, careful, attentive and conscientious conduct, the time at which documents were received and other circumstances confirm that in the case under consideration, even if it were decided that the period for instituting proceedings was exceeded, the period would have to be renewed, as it was exceeded for important, objective and justifiable reasons, namely observance of the procedure laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (first paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice). The appellant could not know that observance of the compulsory procedure laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament may mean that he loses his right to institute proceedings before the General Court (second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice). It is to be noted that in the application the appellant also raised later the issue whether the decisions of the Quaestors and the Bureau of the European Parliament adopted pursuant to Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament were well founded and lawful.

| 3. | In the order, the General Court wrongly applied Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and on that basis decided by the order not to take further steps in the proceedings and to dismiss the action;






  — | in the order, the General Court based the application of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure on the single circumstance and ground that proceedings were instituted out of time, that is to say, after the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU had expired; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

In the order, the General Court wrongly applied Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and on that basis decided by the order not to take further steps in the proceedings and to dismiss the action;

—

in the order, the General Court based the application of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure on the single circumstance and ground that proceedings were instituted out of time, that is to say, after the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU had expired;

| — | it was demonstrated in the application that the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for instituting proceedings had not expired, and therefore by the order the General Court dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure wrongly and unlawfully; |
| --- | --- |

—

it was demonstrated in the application that the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for instituting proceedings had not expired, and therefore by the order the General Court dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure wrongly and unlawfully;

| — | in the case under consideration, the basis and the conditions for applying Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court are absent. The application was lodged before the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU had expired and therefore it cannot be considered manifestly inadmissible. In the case under consideration, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure by applying it wrongly and unlawfully. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case under consideration, the basis and the conditions for applying Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court are absent. The application was lodged before the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU had expired and therefore it cannot be considered manifestly inadmissible. In the case under consideration, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure by applying it wrongly and unlawfully.

| 4. | The order of the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, laid down in Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because by the order the General Court unlawfully and wrongly dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that it was allegedly out of time and did not examine the application, and the arguments and claims set out therein, as to the substance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The order of the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, laid down in Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because by the order the General Court unlawfully and wrongly dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that it was allegedly out of time and did not examine the application, and the arguments and claims set out therein, as to the substance.

| 5. | By the order, the General Court wrongly decided that the appellant had to bear his own costs before the General Court (Article 133 and Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court):
  by the order, the General Court wrongly dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, and therefore it also wrongly decided that the appellant had to bear his own costs before the General Court. After the order of the General Court has been set aside and the case has been referred back to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the question of the allocation of costs must be determined anew by the final decision of the General Court, and, if the action were upheld, the defendant, the European Parliament, would have to be ordered to pay the appellant all the costs incurred by him (Article 133 and Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court). |
| --- | --- |

5.

By the order, the General Court wrongly decided that the appellant had to bear his own costs before the General Court (Article 133 and Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court):

by the order, the General Court wrongly dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, and therefore it also wrongly decided that the appellant had to bear his own costs before the General Court. After the order of the General Court has been set aside and the case has been referred back to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the question of the allocation of costs must be determined anew by the final decision of the General Court, and, if the action were upheld, the defendant, the European Parliament, would have to be ordered to pay the appellant all the costs incurred by him (Article 133 and Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/27

---

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-336/16)

(2016/C 343/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (Agents: K. Hermann and E. Manhaeve)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 13(1), in conjunction with Annex XI, Article 23(1), second subparagraph, and Article 22(3), in conjunction with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (1) by reason of the facts that:






  — | since 2007 and up to at least 2013, the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 were exceeded in 35 ambient air quality zones and the annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 were exceeded in 9 ambient air quality zones, and no information has been provided to indicate that this situation has improved; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 13(1), in conjunction with Annex XI, Article 23(1), second subparagraph, and Article 22(3), in conjunction with Annex XI, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (1) by reason of the facts that:

—

since 2007 and up to at least 2013, the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 were exceeded in 35 ambient air quality zones and the annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 were exceeded in 9 ambient air quality zones, and no information has been provided to indicate that this situation has improved;

| — | no appropriate measures have been incorporated in the ambient air quality programmes in order to minimise the period in which the limit values for particulate matter PM10 in the air are exceeded; |
| --- | --- |

—

no appropriate measures have been incorporated in the ambient air quality programmes in order to minimise the period in which the limit values for particulate matter PM10 in the air are exceeded;

| — | the daily limit values, increased by the tolerance margin, were exceeded from 1 January 2010 to 10 June 2011 in zone 14.17 — City of Radom –, in zone 14.18 — Pruszków-Żyrardów –, and in zone 16.15 — Kędzierzyn-Koźle — as well as from 1 January 2011 to 10 June 2011 in zone 30.3 — Ostrów-Kępno — and; |
| --- | --- |

—

the daily limit values, increased by the tolerance margin, were exceeded from 1 January 2010 to 10 June 2011 in zone 14.17 — City of Radom –, in zone 14.18 — Pruszków-Żyrardów –, and in zone 16.15 — Kędzierzyn-Koźle — as well as from 1 January 2011 to 10 June 2011 in zone 30.3 — Ostrów-Kępno — and;

| — | Article 23(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe was not correctly implemented; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 23(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe was not correctly implemented;

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

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since 2007 the daily and annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 have been exceeded in, respectively, 35 and 9 zones. Notwithstanding this infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC, the Republic of Poland has, contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, failed to include any appropriate measures in the air quality plans in order to ensure that the periods in which limits are exceeded can be kept as short as possible.

The lack of effectiveness of the measures concerned results, inter alia, from the period during which limit values are exceeded and from the absence of legal provisions laying down emission values for fuels used in the area of individual heat generation and emission values for individual heating installations.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Sacko Moussa v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano

(Case C-348/16)

(2016/C 343/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sacko Moussa

Defendant: Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano

Question referred

Must Directive 2013/32/EU (1) (in particular Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46) be interpreted as permitting a procedure, such as the Italian procedure (under Article 19(9) of Legislative Decree No 150 of 2011), whereby a judicial authority seised by an asylum-seeker — whose application has been rejected by the administrative authority responsible for considering applications for asylum after it has conducted a full examination, including an interview — may, in cases where the application for judicial review is manifestly unfounded and the administrative authority’s rejection of the application is thus incontrovertible, dismiss the application for judicial review without preparatory inquiries and without being required to afford the applicant a further opportunity to be heard?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/28

---

Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 Pappalardo and Others v Commission

(Case C-350/16 P)

(2016/C 343/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. s.n.c, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., and Valentino Pesca s.a.s. di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

| — | Primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 and refer the case back to the General Court in order that it may give a ruling on the dispute in compliance with the principles of law established by the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-316/13 and refer the case back to the General Court in order that it may give a ruling on the dispute in compliance with the principles of law established by the Court of Justice.

| — | In the alternative, should it find, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute, that the documents before it enable it to do so, decide on the merits of the claim for compensation put forward by the appellants in the action originally brought before the General Court and, specifically:






  1. | declare that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability for the damage caused to the appellants by the adoption of Regulation No 530/2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45oW, and in the Mediterranean Sea, (1) declared invalid by the Court of Justice by judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09 [AJD Tuna]; and, consequently, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, should it find, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute, that the documents before it enable it to do so, decide on the merits of the claim for compensation put forward by the appellants in the action originally brought before the General Court and, specifically:

1.

declare that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability for the damage caused to the appellants by the adoption of Regulation No 530/2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45oW, and in the Mediterranean Sea, (1) declared invalid by the Court of Justice by judgment of 17 March 2011 in Case C-221/09 [AJD Tuna]; and, consequently,

| 2. | order the European Commission to compensate the appellants for the damage caused; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the European Commission to compensate the appellants for the damage caused;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| I. | The General Court erred in law in excluding the relevance of its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08 for establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008.
  In order to declare that there was no need to adjudicate in Case T-305/08, the order of 14 February 2012 interpreted the judgment in AJD Tuna as having entirely satisfied the applicant’s claim in that case, namely the request for a declaration of invalidity of Article 1 of Regulation No 530/2008. Therefore, establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna forms the subject matter of the decision given in the order of 14 February 2012.
  It follows that, in the judgment now under appeal, the General Court should have applied the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008, the significance of which was established in its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08. |
| --- | --- |

I.

The General Court erred in law in excluding the relevance of its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08 for establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008.

In order to declare that there was no need to adjudicate in Case T-305/08, the order of 14 February 2012 interpreted the judgment in AJD Tuna as having entirely satisfied the applicant’s claim in that case, namely the request for a declaration of invalidity of Article 1 of Regulation No 530/2008. Therefore, establishing the significance of the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna forms the subject matter of the decision given in the order of 14 February 2012.

It follows that, in the judgment now under appeal, the General Court should have applied the declaration of invalidity made in the judgment in AJD Tuna in respect of Regulation No 530/2008, the significance of which was established in its order of 14 February 2012 in Case T-305/08.

| II. | The General Court erred in law in holding that the infringement by Regulation No 530/2008 of the principle of non-discrimination does not constitute a clear and serious breach.
  The General Court failed to take into account how the clear and serious nature of the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination is already indicated by the judgment in AJD Tuna. In addition, the General Court failed to apply the principles laid down in its own case-law in Case T-351/03 Schneider v Commission and in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission. Lastly, the General Court failed to apply the test set out by the Court of Justice in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider. |
| --- | --- |

II.

The General Court erred in law in holding that the infringement by Regulation No 530/2008 of the principle of non-discrimination does not constitute a clear and serious breach.

The General Court failed to take into account how the clear and serious nature of the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination is already indicated by the judgment in AJD Tuna. In addition, the General Court failed to apply the principles laid down in its own case-law in Case T-351/03 Schneider v Commission and in Case T-429/05 Artegodan v Commission. Lastly, the General Court failed to apply the test set out by the Court of Justice in Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v Aziz Hasan

(Case C-360/16)

(2016/C 343/42)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany

Respondent: Aziz Hasan

Questions referred

| 1. | In a case where a third-country national, after lodging a second asylum application in another Member State (here, Germany), was transferred to the Member State having original responsibility for the first asylum application (here, Italy) because of a court’s rejection of his application for suspension of the transfer decision under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’) and then immediately returned illegally to the second Member State (here, Germany):






  a) | According to the principles of the Dublin III Regulation, is the factual situation that is relevant for a court’s review of a transfer decision the situation that pertained at the time of the transfer, because responsibility was definitively determined by transfer within the time limit and therefore the rules in the Dublin III Regulation concerning responsibility are no longer applicable to further developments, or is it necessary to take into consideration subsequent developments in the circumstances relevant to responsibility in general, e.g. expiry of time limits for a take back or (renewed) transfer? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In a case where a third-country national, after lodging a second asylum application in another Member State (here, Germany), was transferred to the Member State having original responsibility for the first asylum application (here, Italy) because of a court’s rejection of his application for suspension of the transfer decision under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’) and then immediately returned illegally to the second Member State (here, Germany):

a)

According to the principles of the Dublin III Regulation, is the factual situation that is relevant for a court’s review of a transfer decision the situation that pertained at the time of the transfer, because responsibility was definitively determined by transfer within the time limit and therefore the rules in the Dublin III Regulation concerning responsibility are no longer applicable to further developments, or is it necessary to take into consideration subsequent developments in the circumstances relevant to responsibility in general, e.g. expiry of time limits for a take back or (renewed) transfer?

| b) | Following determination of responsibility on the basis of the transfer decision, can further transfers be made to the Member State having original responsibility, and does that Member State remain obligated to take charge of the third-country national? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Following determination of responsibility on the basis of the transfer decision, can further transfers be made to the Member State having original responsibility, and does that Member State remain obligated to take charge of the third-country national?

| 2. | If responsibility is not definitively determined by the transfer: Which of the provisions listed below applies in such a case to a person described in Article 18(1)(b), (c), or (d) of the Dublin III Regulation on account of an ongoing appeal against the already enforced transfer decision:






  a) | Article 23 of the Dublin III Regulation (analogously), with the result that, in the case of a new take back request that is not submitted within the time limit, responsibility can shift in accordance with Article 23(2) and (3) of the Dublin III Regulation, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If responsibility is not definitively determined by the transfer: Which of the provisions listed below applies in such a case to a person described in Article 18(1)(b), (c), or (d) of the Dublin III Regulation on account of an ongoing appeal against the already enforced transfer decision:

a)

Article 23 of the Dublin III Regulation (analogously), with the result that, in the case of a new take back request that is not submitted within the time limit, responsibility can shift in accordance with Article 23(2) and (3) of the Dublin III Regulation, or

| b) | Article 24 of the Dublin III Regulation (analogously), or |
| --- | --- |

b)

Article 24 of the Dublin III Regulation (analogously), or

| c) | neither of the provisions set forth in a) and b)? |
| --- | --- |

c)

neither of the provisions set forth in a) and b)?

| 3. | In the event that neither Article 23 nor Article 24 applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(c)): Can further transfers be made to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) on the basis of the challenged transfer decision until conclusion of the appeal against such decision, and does that Member State remain obligated to take charge of the third-country national, irrespective of whether further take back requests have been submitted without complying with the time limits in Article 23(3) or Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and irrespective of the transfer time limits in Article 29(1) and (2) of the Dublin III Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that neither Article 23 nor Article 24 applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(c)): Can further transfers be made to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) on the basis of the challenged transfer decision until conclusion of the appeal against such decision, and does that Member State remain obligated to take charge of the third-country national, irrespective of whether further take back requests have been submitted without complying with the time limits in Article 23(3) or Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and irrespective of the transfer time limits in Article 29(1) and (2) of the Dublin III Regulation?

| 4. | In the event that Article 23 of the Dublin III Regulation applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(a)): Is the new take back request tied (analogously) to a new time limit under Article 23(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? If so: Does this new time limit start to run when the responsible authority learns of re-entry, or does another event determine its commencement? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that Article 23 of the Dublin III Regulation applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(a)): Is the new take back request tied (analogously) to a new time limit under Article 23(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? If so: Does this new time limit start to run when the responsible authority learns of re-entry, or does another event determine its commencement?

| 5. | In the event that Article 24 of the Dublin III Regulation applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(b)):






  a) | Is the submission of a new take back request tied (analogously) to a new time limit under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? If so: Does this new time limit start to run when the responsible authority learns of re-entry, or does another event determine its commencement? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

In the event that Article 24 of the Dublin III Regulation applies (analogously) to such a person (question 2(b)):

a)

Is the submission of a new take back request tied (analogously) to a new time limit under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation? If so: Does this new time limit start to run when the responsible authority learns of re-entry, or does another event determine its commencement?

| b) | If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: Does the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation directly establish the responsibility of the other Member State (here, Germany), or may it, despite the new asylum application, submit a new take back request to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) without being bound by a time limit, or transfer the foreign national to that Member State without submitting a take back request? |
| --- | --- |

b)

If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: Does the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation directly establish the responsibility of the other Member State (here, Germany), or may it, despite the new asylum application, submit a new take back request to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) without being bound by a time limit, or transfer the foreign national to that Member State without submitting a take back request?

| c) | If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: Is the lis pendens of an asylum application lodged in the other Member State (here, Germany) prior to transfer equivalent to the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

c)

If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation: Is the lis pendens of an asylum application lodged in the other Member State (here, Germany) prior to transfer equivalent to the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation?

| d) | If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and the foreign national neither lodges a new asylum application and the lis pendens of an asylum application lodged in the other Member State (here, Germany) prior to transfer is not equivalent to the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation: Can the other Member State (here, Germany) submit a new take back request to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) without being bound by a time limit, or transfer the foreign national to that Member State without submitting a take back request? |
| --- | --- |

d)

If the other Member State (here, Germany) allows a time limit to expire that is required to be complied with (analogously) under Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and the foreign national neither lodges a new asylum application and the lis pendens of an asylum application lodged in the other Member State (here, Germany) prior to transfer is not equivalent to the lodging of a new asylum application pursuant to Article 24(3) of the Dublin III Regulation: Can the other Member State (here, Germany) submit a new take back request to the Member State having original responsibility (here, Italy) without being bound by a time limit, or transfer the foreign national to that Member State without submitting a take back request?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/31

---

Appeal brought on 1 July 2016 by Trioplast Industrier AB against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2016 in Case T-669/14: Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission

(Case C-364/16 P)

(2016/C 343/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Trioplast Industrier AB (represented by: T. Pettersson, F. Sjövall, A. Johansson, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| a. | annul the General Court’s judgment of 12 May 2016 in case T-669/14 Trioplast Industrier v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

a.

annul the General Court’s judgment of 12 May 2016 in case T-669/14 Trioplast Industrier v European Commission;

| b. | in the first alternative:






  (i) | annul the Commission’s decision in its letter of 3 July 2014 in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial Bags — Trioplast Industrier AB; |
| --- | --- | --- |

b.

in the first alternative:

(i)

annul the Commission’s decision in its letter of 3 July 2014 in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial Bags — Trioplast Industrier AB;

| (ii) | cancellation of, or a reduction in the amount of, the default interest of EUR 674 033,32 imposed on Trioplast by the Commission’s decision in its letter of 3 July 2014 in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial Bags — Trioplast Industrier AB; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

cancellation of, or a reduction in the amount of, the default interest of EUR 674 033,32 imposed on Trioplast by the Commission’s decision in its letter of 3 July 2014 in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial Bags — Trioplast Industrier AB;

| (iii) | order the Commission to reimburse Trioplast for the expenses of EUR 4 686,64 incurred in providing security for payment of the default interest. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

order the Commission to reimburse Trioplast for the expenses of EUR 4 686,64 incurred in providing security for payment of the default interest.

| c. | In the second alternative, damages pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU as a result of the breaches of EU laws set out above for:






  (i) | The amount of the default interest of EUR 674 033,32, or part thereof; |
| --- | --- | --- |

c.

In the second alternative, damages pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU as a result of the breaches of EU laws set out above for:

(i)

The amount of the default interest of EUR 674 033,32, or part thereof;

| (ii) | The expenses of EUR 4 686,64 incurred in providing security for the default interest; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

The expenses of EUR 4 686,64 incurred in providing security for the default interest;

| d. | In addition to the relief sought under (b) or (c), damages pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU as a result of the breaches of EU law set out above:






  (i) | As a result of the breaches of EU law relating to the period when the Commission did not release or reduce the bank guarantee amount following the General Court’s judgment in case T-40/06, for the expenses incurred in providing security, to an amount of EUR 22 783,90, or part thereof. |
| --- | --- | --- |

d.

In addition to the relief sought under (b) or (c), damages pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU as a result of the breaches of EU law set out above:

(i)

As a result of the breaches of EU law relating to the period when the Commission did not release or reduce the bank guarantee amount following the General Court’s judgment in case T-40/06, for the expenses incurred in providing security, to an amount of EUR 22 783,90, or part thereof.

| e. | Interest on such sums as are found to be due. |
| --- | --- |

e.

Interest on such sums as are found to be due.

| f. | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as well as the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

f.

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as well as the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Trioplast maintains before the Court of Justice the case brought before the General Court and the grounds relied on. Pursuant to Article 58 of the Statute of the court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 168.1 d) and 169.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Trioplast submits that the General Court by way of its judgment of 12 May 2016 in case T-669/14 dismissing the case has erred in the application of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Trioplast maintains before the Court of Justice the case brought before the General Court and the grounds relied on. Pursuant to Article 58 of the Statute of the court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 168.1 d) and 169.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Trioplast submits that the General Court by way of its judgment of 12 May 2016 in case T-669/14 dismissing the case has erred in the application of EU law.

| 2. | First, the General Court was wrong in law to conclude as it did that the 2010 judgment only amended the 2005 decision. Instead, the 2010 judgment annulled the 2005 decision in full and required the Commission to adopt a new decision against Trioplast once the outcome of the FLS cases became known. |
| --- | --- |

2.

First, the General Court was wrong in law to conclude as it did that the 2010 judgment only amended the 2005 decision. Instead, the 2010 judgment annulled the 2005 decision in full and required the Commission to adopt a new decision against Trioplast once the outcome of the FLS cases became known.

| 3. | Second, the General Court was wrong in law to conclude that the contested letter was not a decision capable of challenge, since the contested letter set out for the first time an obligation for Trioplast which was certain and of a fixed amount. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Second, the General Court was wrong in law to conclude that the contested letter was not a decision capable of challenge, since the contested letter set out for the first time an obligation for Trioplast which was certain and of a fixed amount.

| 4. | Third, the fact that the 2005 decision was annulled by the 2010 judgment means that default interest cannot accrue according to the terms of the 2005 decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Third, the fact that the 2005 decision was annulled by the 2010 judgment means that default interest cannot accrue according to the terms of the 2005 decision.

| 5. | Fourth, the General Court was wrong in law to conclude that the actions of the Commission did not cause damage for Trioplast and the General Court should thus have proceeded to try the action for damages on its substance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fourth, the General Court was wrong in law to conclude that the actions of the Commission did not cause damage for Trioplast and the General Court should thus have proceeded to try the action for damages on its substance.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — H. F. v Belgische Staat

(Case C-366/16)

(2016/C 343/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. F.

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Should Union law, in particular Article 27(2) of the Citizenship Directive (1), whether or not in conjunction with Article 7 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a residence application, lodged by a third-country family member in the context of family reunification with a Union citizen, who in turn has used his right of free movement and residence, can be refused in a Member State because of a threat resulting from the mere presence in society of that family member, who in another Member State was excluded from refugee status pursuant to Article 1F of the Refugee Convention and Article 12(2) of the Qualification Directive (2) because of his involvement in events within a certain socio-historical context in his country of origin, where the genuineness and the reality of the threat posed by the conduct of that family member in the Member State of residence is based solely on a reference to the exclusion decision in the absence of an assessment of the risk of recidivism in the Member State of residence?

---

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

(2)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-372/16)

(2016/C 343/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include cases of private divorce, in this instance one pronounced by unilateral declaration of a spouse before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include cases of private divorce, in this instance one pronounced by unilateral declaration of a spouse before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
  In applying Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 [when examining] Article 10 thereof in cases of private divorce,






  (1) | is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the applicable law pursuant to Article 8 grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to procedural and substantive conditions different from those applicable to access for the first spouse,
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

In applying Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 [when examining] Article 10 thereof in cases of private divorce,

(1)

is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the applicable law pursuant to Article 8 grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to procedural and substantive conditions different from those applicable to access for the first spouse,

or

| (2) | does the applicability of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

does the applicability of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2(2) is in the affirmative:
  Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2(2) is in the affirmative:

Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau

(Case C-382/16)

(2016/C 343/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Landau

Question referred

Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, (formerly Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), in conjunction with Article 48 EC), preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that income of a resident taxpayer derived from business relations with a company established in another Member State in which that taxpayer has a direct or indirect shareholding of at least 25 % and with which that taxpayer has agreed terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances must be calculated as if that income had been earned pursuant to terms agreed on between unrelated third parties, if such a correction is not made in respect of income from business relations with a resident company and the legislation in question does not afford the resident taxpayer the opportunity to present evidence that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the company established in the other Member State?

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — UAB ‘Toridas’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos and Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-386/16)

(2016/C 343/47)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UAB ‘Toridas’

Other parties: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos, Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 138(1), 140(a) and/or 141 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read, inter alia, in conjunction with Articles 33 and 40 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those here at issue (in the main proceedings), the supply of goods by a taxable person who is established in the first Member State must be exempt under those provisions in the case where, before that supply transaction is entered into, the purchaser (that is to say, the person identified as being a taxable person in the second Member State) expresses an intention to sell the goods immediately, before transporting them from the first Member State, to a taxable person established in a third Member State, for whom those goods are transported (dispatched) to that third Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 138(1), 140(a) and/or 141 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read, inter alia, in conjunction with Articles 33 and 40 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those here at issue (in the main proceedings), the supply of goods by a taxable person who is established in the first Member State must be exempt under those provisions in the case where, before that supply transaction is entered into, the purchaser (that is to say, the person identified as being a taxable person in the second Member State) expresses an intention to sell the goods immediately, before transporting them from the first Member State, to a taxable person established in a third Member State, for whom those goods are transported (dispatched) to that third Member State?

| 2. | Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the fact that a portion of the goods was processed on the instructions of the taxable person established (identified for tax purposes) in the second Member State, prior to their being transported to the third Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the fact that a portion of the goods was processed on the instructions of the taxable person established (identified for tax purposes) in the second Member State, prior to their being transported to the third Member State?

---

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-387/16)

(2016/C 343/48)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Other parties: Nidera B.V., Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

Must Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the interest that is normally payable under national law on a VAT overpayment (excess) which was not refunded (set off) in due time, which reduction takes into account circumstances other than those resulting from the actions of the taxable person himself, such as the relationship between the interest and the amount of the overpayment not refunded in due time, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person?

---

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 July 2016 — SIA ‘Aqua Pro’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-407/16)

(2016/C 343/49)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Aqua Pro’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | a) | Is Article 220(1) and (2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the amount of duty payable recognised by the tax authority is to be regarded as entered in the accounts by the tax authority when it decides to enter that amount in the accounts or when it establishes the obligation to pay the duty, regardless of whether that decision has been subject to an administrative appeal and challenged in court proceedings? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

a)

Is Article 220(1) and (2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the amount of duty payable recognised by the tax authority is to be regarded as entered in the accounts by the tax authority when it decides to enter that amount in the accounts or when it establishes the obligation to pay the duty, regardless of whether that decision has been subject to an administrative appeal and challenged in court proceedings?

| b) | Are Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that when the tax authority has adopted the decision to enter the corresponding amount of duty in the accounts and has established the debtor’s obligation to pay it (the decision adopted by the Latvian Tax Authority in the present case), but that debtor has brought an administrative appeal against that decision and challenged it in court proceedings, it is necessary to apply at the same time for remission or repayment of that duty, in accordance with Articles 236 or 239 of the regulation (or, in that case, is the application challenging the decision of the aforementioned tax authority to be regarded also as an application for remission or repayment of the tax debt)? If so, what is the difference in substance between the review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision to enter the duty in the accounts and the obligation to pay the duty, on the one hand, and the matter which must be resolved in accordance with Article 236, on the other? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Are Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that when the tax authority has adopted the decision to enter the corresponding amount of duty in the accounts and has established the debtor’s obligation to pay it (the decision adopted by the Latvian Tax Authority in the present case), but that debtor has brought an administrative appeal against that decision and challenged it in court proceedings, it is necessary to apply at the same time for remission or repayment of that duty, in accordance with Articles 236 or 239 of the regulation (or, in that case, is the application challenging the decision of the aforementioned tax authority to be regarded also as an application for remission or repayment of the tax debt)? If so, what is the difference in substance between the review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision to enter the duty in the accounts and the obligation to pay the duty, on the one hand, and the matter which must be resolved in accordance with Article 236, on the other?

| c) | Is the first subparagraph of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an appeal has been brought against the tax authority’s decision establishing the obligation to pay the duty, and the duration of the legal proceedings, extend the time limit for submitting the application for remission or repayment of the duty (or justify failure to comply with it)? |
| --- | --- |

c)

Is the first subparagraph of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an appeal has been brought against the tax authority’s decision establishing the obligation to pay the duty, and the duration of the legal proceedings, extend the time limit for submitting the application for remission or repayment of the duty (or justify failure to comply with it)?

| d) | If the question of whether, in this case, the duty should be entered in the accounts or remitted is to be decided regardless of the decision of the European Commission adopted in relation to another Member State (in this case, Finland), should the customs authority or the court, having regard to Article 869(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and also to the amount of the possible duty in the case under consideration, refer the question of non-entry or remission of the duty to the European Commission? |
| --- | --- |

d)

If the question of whether, in this case, the duty should be entered in the accounts or remitted is to be decided regardless of the decision of the European Commission adopted in relation to another Member State (in this case, Finland), should the customs authority or the court, having regard to Article 869(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and also to the amount of the possible duty in the case under consideration, refer the question of non-entry or remission of the duty to the European Commission?

| 2. | a) | When Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is applied, should a subsequent check be made on the circumstances relating to the conduct of the authorities and the exporter of the third country (in the present case, Cambodia), which were investigated in connection with the OLAF mission? Or should it be considered that the general description of the circumstances contained in the OLAF report on the aforementioned conduct constitutes evidence? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

a)

When Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is applied, should a subsequent check be made on the circumstances relating to the conduct of the authorities and the exporter of the third country (in the present case, Cambodia), which were investigated in connection with the OLAF mission? Or should it be considered that the general description of the circumstances contained in the OLAF report on the aforementioned conduct constitutes evidence?

| b) | Is the information obtained in the subsequent check, even if it refers to the case of a specific Member State, crucial to the OLAF report? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Is the information obtained in the subsequent check, even if it refers to the case of a specific Member State, crucial to the OLAF report?

| c) | Is Article 875 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission’s decision, adopted in accordance with the aforementioned OLAF report in respect of another Member State (in that case, Finland), is binding on the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

c)

Is Article 875 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission’s decision, adopted in accordance with the aforementioned OLAF report in respect of another Member State (in that case, Finland), is binding on the Member State?

| d) | Should the subsequent check be carried out and should the information obtained thereby be used if the European Commission, on the basis of the OLAF report, has adopted a decision not to enter the duty in the accounts in relation to another Member State and has applied Article 875 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code? |
| --- | --- |

d)

Should the subsequent check be carried out and should the information obtained thereby be used if the European Commission, on the basis of the OLAF report, has adopted a decision not to enter the duty in the accounts in relation to another Member State and has applied Article 875 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code?

| 3. | When the existence of reasonable grounds and good faith in the conduct of the taxable person is evaluated for the purposes of applying Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may it be relevant in the specific circumstances that the merchandise import transaction is based on a distribution agreement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When the existence of reasonable grounds and good faith in the conduct of the taxable person is evaluated for the purposes of applying Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may it be relevant in the specific circumstances that the merchandise import transaction is based on a distribution agreement?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

(Case C-155/16) (1)

(2016/C 343/50)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

---

General Court

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/38

---

Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-72/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Annulment of the contested acts - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 343/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran (Iran)) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons and entities to whom those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association.

| 3. | Bank Mellat, the Council of the European Union, Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Bank Mellat, the Council of the European Union, Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/38

---

Action brought on 8 July 2016 — Portigon v SRB

(Case T-365/16)

(2016/C 343/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener and V. Jungkind, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decisions underpinning the notices by which, on 22 April 2016 (Ref: 2208101-2016-JB) and on 10 June 2016 (Ref: 2208102-2016-JB2), the German Federal Agency for Financial Market Stabilisation (Bundesanstalt für Finanzmarktstabilisierung) requested payment by the applicant of annual contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for the year 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decisions underpinning the notices by which, on 22 April 2016 (Ref: 2208101-2016-JB) and on 10 June 2016 (Ref: 2208102-2016-JB2), the German Federal Agency for Financial Market Stabilisation (Bundesanstalt für Finanzmarktstabilisierung) requested payment by the applicant of annual contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for the year 2016;

| — | order the defendant to produce the decisions referred to in the first paragraph; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce the decisions referred to in the first paragraph;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3)







  — | The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution to the Fund, as the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3)

—

The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution to the Fund, as the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system.

| — | The applicant is no longer operationally active on the market. Since the beginning of 2012 it no longer engages in any new business and it is under resolution as a result of an aid decision by the Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity, which has taken over the opportunities and risks from that business. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant is no longer operationally active on the market. Since the beginning of 2012 it no longer engages in any new business and it is under resolution as a result of an aid decision by the Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity, which has taken over the opportunities and risks from that business.

| — | Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (4) which makes no provision for exceptions for institutions such as the applicant, itself infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (4) which makes no provision for exceptions for institutions such as the applicant, itself infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)
  In view of the special situation of the applicant in comparison with other credit institutions liable to pay contributions, the decisions are contrary to the general principle of equality. Further, they interfere disproportionately with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)

In view of the special situation of the applicant in comparison with other credit institutions liable to pay contributions, the decisions are contrary to the general principle of equality. Further, they interfere disproportionately with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU
  In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly failed to exclude the applicant’s risk-free on-balance sheet fiduciary business from the liabilities relevant to collection of the contribution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU

In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly failed to exclude the applicant’s risk-free on-balance sheet fiduciary business from the liabilities relevant to collection of the contribution.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63
  In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly failed to adopt a risk-appropriate net approach in relation to the applicant’s derivative contracts, adopting instead a gross approach. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63

In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly failed to adopt a risk-appropriate net approach in relation to the applicant’s derivative contracts, adopting instead a gross approach.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63
  In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing restructuring. The risk indicator under Article 6(5)(c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 should have taken the minimum value. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63

In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing restructuring. The risk indicator under Article 6(5)(c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 should have taken the minimum value.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter, as the defendant should have given the applicant a hearing before adopting its decisions. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter, as the defendant should have given the applicant a hearing before adopting its decisions.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the defendant did not give adequate reasons for its decisions. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the defendant did not give adequate reasons for its decisions.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  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 (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/40

---

Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-376/16)

(2016/C 343/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Oberösterreichische Landesbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which clearly is inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which clearly is inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;

| — | in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision

| 2. | Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision

| 3. | Third plea in law: insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: illegality of the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: illegality of the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/41

---

Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

(Case T-377/16)

(2016/C 343/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;

| — | in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/41

---

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)

(Case T-395/16)

(2016/C 343/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: B. Schneider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Windfinder’ — Application No 13 350 467

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 1206/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | amend the contested decision to the extent that EU trade mark application No 13 350 467 is registered as applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision to the extent that EU trade mark application No 13 350 467 is registered as applied for;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/42

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package)

(Case T-404/16)

(2016/C 343/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (Shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 408 424

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1613/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/43

---

Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)

(Case T-407/16)

(2016/C 343/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pledgeling LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the letter ‘p’ — Application for registration No 12 123 147

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1693/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 73 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 73 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/43

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)

(Case T-418/16)

(2016/C 343/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 417 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1614/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/44

---

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera)

(Case T-419/16)

(2016/C 343/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Carrera Brands Ltd (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: C. Markowsky, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Carrera’ — EU trade mark No 4 630 711

Proceedings before EUIPO: revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 in Case R 278/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision and amend it to the extent that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 January 2015 is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision and amend it to the extent that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 January 2015 is annulled;

| — | annul the contested decision with regard to the rejection of the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with regard to the rejection of the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed; and

| — | in the alternative: amend the contested decision in such a way that the applicant’s request of 22 August 2014 for the proceedings to be stayed, repeated on 21 May 2015 in the appeal proceedings, is granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: amend the contested decision in such a way that the applicant’s request of 22 August 2014 for the proceedings to be stayed, repeated on 21 May 2015 in the appeal proceedings, is granted;

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

—

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

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/45

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)

(Case T-421/16)

(2016/C 343/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Oma’ — Application No 14 169 478

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 91/2016-4

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, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/45

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)

(Case T-422/16)

(2016/C 343/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Mama’ — Application No 14 169 304

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 95/2016-4

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, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/46

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius)

(Case T-425/16)

(2016/C 343/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl Hoffmann (Bad Schwalbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Genius’ — Application No 13 509 071

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2016 in Case R 1631/2015-5

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

—

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

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/46

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE)

(Case T-427/16)

(2016/C 343/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL WIFE’ — EU trade mark No 5 276 894

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1528/2015-2

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 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/47

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)

(Case T-428/16)

(2016/C 343/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL LOVER’ — EU trade mark No 5 261 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1527/2015-2

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 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/48

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL HUSBAND)

(Case T-429/16)

(2016/C 343/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL HUSBAND’ — EU trade mark No 5 231 808

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1526/2015-2

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 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/48

---

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-438/16)

(2016/C 343/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 127 870 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 in Case R 1889/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or

| — | remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered;

| — | order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis. |
| --- | --- |

—

order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the assessment of the similarity between goods and services and the resulting assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the assessment of the similarity between goods and services and the resulting assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/49

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

(Case T-506/14) (1)

(2016/C 343/67)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---