# Official Journal C 200/11 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 200 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6111 June 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 200

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6111 June 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 200/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 200/01

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 |
| 2018/C 200/02 | Case C-191/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State — Scope of EU law — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin) | 2 |
| 2018/C 200/03 | Case C-258/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 31 — Liability of air carriers for checked baggage — Requirements as to the form and content of the written complaint sent to the air carrier — Complaint made electronically and recorded in the air carrier’s information system — Complaint made on behalf of the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo by an agent of the air carrier) | 3 |
| 2018/C 200/04 | Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Germany, United Kingdom) — B v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero (C-424/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Enhanced protection against expulsion — Conditions — Right of permanent residence — Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State — Period of imprisonment — Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence — Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link — Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment) | 4 |
| 2018/C 200/05 | Case C-320/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Rule on information society services — Definition — Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Criminal penalties) | 5 |
| 2018/C 200/06 | Case C-414/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/CE — Equal treatment — Difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Religion or belief constituting a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos — Concept — Nature and context of the activities — Article 17 TFEU — Articles 10, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) | 6 |
| 2018/C 200/07 | Case C-478/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev (Appeal — EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Examination by the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1)) | 7 |
| 2018/C 200/08 | Case C-525/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU — Concept of competitive disadvantage — Discriminatory prices on a downstream market — Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright — Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content) | 7 |
| 2018/C 200/09 | Case C-532/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Supply of land — Mischaracterisation as taxable activity — Indication of VAT on the initial invoice — Amendment of that indication by the supplier) | 8 |
| 2018/C 200/10 | Case C-541/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 2(6) — Article 8 — Cabotage operations — Definition — Definition contained in a Questions and answers document drawn up by the European Commission — Legal force — National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation — Discretion — Restriction — Proportionality) | 9 |
| 2018/C 200/11 | Case C-550/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 2(f) — Definition of unaccompanied minor — Article 10(3)(a) — Right of a refugee to family reunification with his parents — Refugee below the age of 18 at the time of entry into the Member State and at the time of application for asylum, but over 18 at the time of the decision granting asylum and of his application for family reunification — Relevant date for assessing minor status of the person concerned) | 9 |
| 2018/C 200/12 | Case C-565/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions) | 10 |
| 2018/C 200/13 | Case C-580/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Firma Hans Bühler KG v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Place of intra-Community acquisition — Article 42 — Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply — Article 141 — Exemption — Triangular transaction — Simplification measures — Article 265 — Correction of recapitulative statement) | 11 |
| 2018/C 200/14 | Case C-645/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract — Article 17 — Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract) | 12 |
| 2018/C 200/15 | Case C-8/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT — Period allowed by national law for exercising that right — Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment — The date from which the period starts to run) | 12 |
| 2018/C 200/16 | Case C-13/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 10(2) — Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products — Qualifications of the safety assessor — Recognition of equivalent training courses — Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine — Member States’ discretion) | 13 |
| 2018/C 200/17 | Case C-65/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Health and social services — Award contrary to the rules on public procurement — Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment — Concept of certain cross-border interest — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 27) | 14 |
| 2018/C 200/18 | Case C-75/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65 — Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Figurative mark containing the word elements PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Conditions — Sign of more than merely local significance — Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark) | 14 |
| 2018/C 200/19 | Case C-110/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax on the income of Belgian residents — Calculation of income from immovable property — Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated — Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium — Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) — Difference in treatment — Restriction on the free movement of capital) | 15 |
| 2018/C 200/20 | Case C-148/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 14 — Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark — Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 34(2) — Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark — Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark) | 16 |
| 2018/C 200/21 | Case C-152/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17/EC — Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract — No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC — Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations — Article 3(3) TEU — Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Inadmissibility — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Provision of national law not implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction) | 16 |
| 2018/C 200/22 | Joined Cases C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17) v TUIfly GmbH (References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Exemption — Extraordinary circumstances — Wildcat strike) | 17 |
| 2018/C 200/23 | Case C-227/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 — Spinal fixation systems — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014) | 18 |
| 2018/C 200/24 | Case C-302/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Objectives — Free allocation of allowances — National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation) | 19 |
| 2018/C 200/25 | Case C-323/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Article 6(3) — Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project — Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose) | 19 |
| 2018/C 200/26 | Case C-441/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(1) and (3) — Article 12(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Articles 4 and 5 — Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site — Amendment of the forest management plan — Increase in the volume of harvestable timber — Plan or project not directly necessary to the management of the site that is likely to have a significant effect on it — Appropriate assessment of the implications for the site — Adverse effect on the integrity of the site — Actual implementation of the conservation measures — Effects on the breeding sites and resting places of the protected species) | 20 |
| 2018/C 200/27 | Case C-124/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by Red Bull GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15: Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 21 |
| 2018/C 200/28 | Case C-207/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 22 |
| 2018/C 200/29 | Case C-208/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd | 23 |
| 2018/C 200/30 | Case C-250/18: Action brought on 11 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia | 24 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 200/31 | Case T-554/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MESSI — Earlier EU word marks MASSI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1011)) | 26 |
| 2018/C 200/32 | Case T-561/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission (Institutional law — European Citizens’ Initiative — Research policy — Public health — Development cooperation — EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Actions for annulment — Capacity to bring legal proceedings — Challengeable act — Partial inadmissibility — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 26 |
| 2018/C 200/33 | Case T-43/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission (Protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola — Registration procedure — Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities — Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin — Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration — Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court — Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries — Principle of sound administration — Effective judicial protection) | 27 |
| 2018/C 200/34 | Case T-251/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA — Implied refusal to grant access — Express refusal to grant access — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to opinions intended for internal use — Obligation to state reasons) | 28 |
| 2018/C 200/35 | Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission (State aid — Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies — Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof — Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction — Action for annulment — Severable nature of the suspension order — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Principle of loyal cooperation — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999) | 29 |
| 2018/C 200/36 | Case T-752/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV) — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low tender — Award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability) | 29 |
| 2018/C 200/37 | Joined Cases T-133/16 to T-136/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(e) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Person effectively directing the business of a credit institution — Article 13(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU and the second paragraph of Article L. 511-13 of the French Monetary and Financial Code — Prohibition on combining the role of chairman of the management body of a credit institution in its supervisory function with the role of chief executive officer of the same establishment — Article 88(1)(e) of Directive 2013/36 and Article L. 511-58 of the French Monetary and Financial Code) | 30 |
| 2018/C 200/38 | Case T-190/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Misuse of power — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Manifest error of assessment) | 31 |
| 2018/C 200/39 | Case T-248/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2018/C 200/40 | Case T-288/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark M’Cooky — Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion) | 32 |
| 2018/C 200/41 | Case T-312/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 33 |
| 2018/C 200/42 | Case T-426/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Aa AROMAS artesanales — Earlier EU figurative mark Aromas PERFUMARIA Beleza em todos os sentidos — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Relevant public — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 34 |
| 2018/C 200/43 | Case T-468/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons) | 34 |
| 2018/C 200/44 | Case T-747/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Opinion of the Invalidity Committee — Discretion of Appointing Authority — Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons) | 35 |
| 2018/C 200/45 | Case T-756/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a trellis — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Articles 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 36 |
| 2018/C 200/46 | Case T-763/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger (Arbitration clause — Staff of EU international missions — Disputes concerning employment contracts — Internal investigation procedures — Protection of victims in cases where a claim of harassment has been made — Contractual liability) | 36 |
| 2018/C 200/47 | Case T-831/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 37 |
| 2018/C 200/48 | Case T-183/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a man in regional costume — Earlier national industrial designs — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use of the EU trade mark prohibited under national law — Application of national law by EUIPO) | 38 |
| 2018/C 200/49 | Case T-207/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark hp — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 38 |
| 2018/C 200/50 | Case T-208/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 39 |
| 2018/C 200/51 | Case T-213/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ROMANTIK — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2018/C 200/52 | Case T-220/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark 100 % Pfalz — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 40 |
| 2018/C 200/53 | Case T-221/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Mémora Servicios Funerarios v EUIPO — Chatenoud (MEMORAME) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MEMORAME — Earlier EU figurative mark mémora and earlier national word marks MÉMORA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 41 |
| 2018/C 200/54 | Case T-297/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 42 |
| 2018/C 200/55 | Case T-354/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Equal treatment) | 42 |
| 2018/C 200/56 | Case T-212/18: Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex | 43 |
| 2018/C 200/57 | Case T-226/18: Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission | 44 |
| 2018/C 200/58 | Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili) | 46 |
| 2018/C 200/59 | Case T-240/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT v Commission | 46 |
| 2018/C 200/60 | Case T-245/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Benavides Torres v Council | 47 |
| 2018/C 200/61 | Case T-246/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Moreno Pérez v Council | 48 |
| 2018/C 200/62 | Case T-247/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Lucena Ramírez v Council | 48 |
| 2018/C 200/63 | Case T-248/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Cabello Rondón v Conseil | 49 |
| 2018/C 200/64 | Case T-249/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Saab Halabi v Council | 50 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 200/02

Case C-191/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State — Scope of EU law — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin)

2

2018/C 200/03

Case C-258/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 31 — Liability of air carriers for checked baggage — Requirements as to the form and content of the written complaint sent to the air carrier — Complaint made electronically and recorded in the air carrier’s information system — Complaint made on behalf of the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo by an agent of the air carrier)

3

2018/C 200/04

Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Germany, United Kingdom) — B v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero (C-424/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Enhanced protection against expulsion — Conditions — Right of permanent residence — Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State — Period of imprisonment — Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence — Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link — Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment)

4

2018/C 200/05

Case C-320/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Rule on information society services — Definition — Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Criminal penalties)

5

2018/C 200/06

Case C-414/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/CE — Equal treatment — Difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Religion or belief constituting a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos — Concept — Nature and context of the activities — Article 17 TFEU — Articles 10, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

6

2018/C 200/07

Case C-478/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev (Appeal — EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Examination by the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1))

7

2018/C 200/08

Case C-525/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU — Concept of competitive disadvantage — Discriminatory prices on a downstream market — Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright — Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content)

7

2018/C 200/09

Case C-532/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Supply of land — Mischaracterisation as taxable activity — Indication of VAT on the initial invoice — Amendment of that indication by the supplier)

8

2018/C 200/10

Case C-541/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 2(6) — Article 8 — Cabotage operations — Definition — Definition contained in a Questions and answers document drawn up by the European Commission — Legal force — National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation — Discretion — Restriction — Proportionality)

9

2018/C 200/11

Case C-550/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 2(f) — Definition of unaccompanied minor — Article 10(3)(a) — Right of a refugee to family reunification with his parents — Refugee below the age of 18 at the time of entry into the Member State and at the time of application for asylum, but over 18 at the time of the decision granting asylum and of his application for family reunification — Relevant date for assessing minor status of the person concerned)

9

2018/C 200/12

Case C-565/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions)

10

2018/C 200/13

Case C-580/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Firma Hans Bühler KG v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Place of intra-Community acquisition — Article 42 — Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply — Article 141 — Exemption — Triangular transaction — Simplification measures — Article 265 — Correction of recapitulative statement)

11

2018/C 200/14

Case C-645/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract — Article 17 — Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract)

12

2018/C 200/15

Case C-8/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT — Period allowed by national law for exercising that right — Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment — The date from which the period starts to run)

12

2018/C 200/16

Case C-13/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 10(2) — Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products — Qualifications of the safety assessor — Recognition of equivalent training courses — Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine — Member States’ discretion)

13

2018/C 200/17

Case C-65/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Health and social services — Award contrary to the rules on public procurement — Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment — Concept of certain cross-border interest — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 27)

14

2018/C 200/18

Case C-75/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65 — Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Figurative mark containing the word elements PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Conditions — Sign of more than merely local significance — Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark)

14

2018/C 200/19

Case C-110/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax on the income of Belgian residents — Calculation of income from immovable property — Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated — Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium — Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) — Difference in treatment — Restriction on the free movement of capital)

15

2018/C 200/20

Case C-148/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 14 — Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark — Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 34(2) — Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark — Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark)

16

2018/C 200/21

Case C-152/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17/EC — Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract — No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC — Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations — Article 3(3) TEU — Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Inadmissibility — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Provision of national law not implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)

16

2018/C 200/22

Joined Cases C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17) v TUIfly GmbH (References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Exemption — Extraordinary circumstances — Wildcat strike)

17

2018/C 200/23

Case C-227/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 — Spinal fixation systems — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014)

18

2018/C 200/24

Case C-302/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Objectives — Free allocation of allowances — National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation)

19

2018/C 200/25

Case C-323/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Article 6(3) — Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project — Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose)

19

2018/C 200/26

Case C-441/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(1) and (3) — Article 12(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Articles 4 and 5 — Puszcza Białowieska Natura 2000 site — Amendment of the forest management plan — Increase in the volume of harvestable timber — Plan or project not directly necessary to the management of the site that is likely to have a significant effect on it — Appropriate assessment of the implications for the site — Adverse effect on the integrity of the site — Actual implementation of the conservation measures — Effects on the breeding sites and resting places of the protected species)

20

2018/C 200/27

Case C-124/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by Red Bull GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15: Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

21

2018/C 200/28

Case C-207/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

22

2018/C 200/29

Case C-208/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

23

2018/C 200/30

Case C-250/18: Action brought on 11 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

24

General Court

2018/C 200/31

Case T-554/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MESSI — Earlier EU word marks MASSI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1011))

26

2018/C 200/32

Case T-561/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission (Institutional law — European Citizens’ Initiative — Research policy — Public health — Development cooperation — EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Actions for annulment — Capacity to bring legal proceedings — Challengeable act — Partial inadmissibility — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

26

2018/C 200/33

Case T-43/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission (Protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola — Registration procedure — Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities — Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin — Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration — Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court — Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries — Principle of sound administration — Effective judicial protection)

27

2018/C 200/34

Case T-251/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA — Implied refusal to grant access — Express refusal to grant access — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to opinions intended for internal use — Obligation to state reasons)

28

2018/C 200/35

Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission (State aid — Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies — Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof — Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction — Action for annulment — Severable nature of the suspension order — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Principle of loyal cooperation — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

29

2018/C 200/36

Case T-752/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV) — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low tender — Award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

29

2018/C 200/37

Joined Cases T-133/16 to T-136/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(e) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Person effectively directing the business of a credit institution — Article 13(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU and the second paragraph of Article L. 511-13 of the French Monetary and Financial Code — Prohibition on combining the role of chairman of the management body of a credit institution in its supervisory function with the role of chief executive officer of the same establishment — Article 88(1)(e) of Directive 2013/36 and Article L. 511-58 of the French Monetary and Financial Code)

30

2018/C 200/38

Case T-190/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Misuse of power — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Manifest error of assessment)

31

2018/C 200/39

Case T-248/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

32

2018/C 200/40

Case T-288/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark M’Cooky — Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

32

2018/C 200/41

Case T-312/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

33

2018/C 200/42

Case T-426/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Aa AROMAS artesanales — Earlier EU figurative mark Aromas PERFUMARIA Beleza em todos os sentidos — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Relevant public — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

34

2018/C 200/43

Case T-468/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons)

34

2018/C 200/44

Case T-747/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Opinion of the Invalidity Committee — Discretion of Appointing Authority — Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

35

2018/C 200/45

Case T-756/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a trellis — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Articles 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

36

2018/C 200/46

Case T-763/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger (Arbitration clause — Staff of EU international missions — Disputes concerning employment contracts — Internal investigation procedures — Protection of victims in cases where a claim of harassment has been made — Contractual liability)

36

2018/C 200/47

Case T-831/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

37

2018/C 200/48

Case T-183/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a man in regional costume — Earlier national industrial designs — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use of the EU trade mark prohibited under national law — Application of national law by EUIPO)

38

2018/C 200/49

Case T-207/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark hp — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

38

2018/C 200/50

Case T-208/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

39

2018/C 200/51

Case T-213/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ROMANTIK — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

40

2018/C 200/52

Case T-220/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark 100 % Pfalz — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

40

2018/C 200/53

Case T-221/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Mémora Servicios Funerarios v EUIPO — Chatenoud (MEMORAME) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MEMORAME — Earlier EU figurative mark mémora and earlier national word marks MÉMORA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

41

2018/C 200/54

Case T-297/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

42

2018/C 200/55

Case T-354/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)

42

2018/C 200/56

Case T-212/18: Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex

43

2018/C 200/57

Case T-226/18: Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission

44

2018/C 200/58

Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

46

2018/C 200/59

Case T-240/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT v Commission

46

2018/C 200/60

Case T-245/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Benavides Torres v Council

47

2018/C 200/61

Case T-246/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Moreno Pérez v Council

48

2018/C 200/62

Case T-247/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Lucena Ramírez v Council

48

2018/C 200/63

Case T-248/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Cabello Rondón v Conseil

49

2018/C 200/64

Case T-249/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Saab Halabi v Council

50

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/1

---

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

(2018/C 200/01)

Last publication

OJ C 190, 4.6.2018

Past publications

OJ C 182, 28.5.2018

OJ C 166, 14.5.2018

OJ C 161, 7.5.2018

OJ C 152, 30.4.2018

OJ C 142, 23.4.2018

OJ C 134, 16.4.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-191/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement - Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State - Scope of EU law - Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals - Restriction on free movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality - Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin))

(2018/C 200/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Romano Pisciotti

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Union citizen who has been the subject of a request for extradition to the United States of America has been arrested, for the purposes of potentially acceding to that request, in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national, the situation of that citizen falls within the scope of EU law, since he has made use of his right to move freely within the European Union and the request for extradition was made under the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003. |
| --- | --- |

1.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Union citizen who has been the subject of a request for extradition to the United States of America has been arrested, for the purposes of potentially acceding to that request, in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national, the situation of that citizen falls within the scope of EU law, since he has made use of his right to move freely within the European Union and the request for extradition was made under the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003.

| 2. | In a case, such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Union citizen who has been the subject of a request for extradition to the United States of America under the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003 has been arrested in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national, for the purposes of potentially acceding to that request, Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the requested Member State from drawing a distinction, on the basis of a rule of constitutional law, between its nationals and the nationals of other Member States and from granting that extradition whilst not permitting extradition of its own nationals, provided that the requested Member State has already put the competent authorities of the Member State of which the citizen is a national in a position to seek the surrender of that citizen pursuant to a European arrest warrant and the latter Member State has not taken any action in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In a case, such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Union citizen who has been the subject of a request for extradition to the United States of America under the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003 has been arrested in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national, for the purposes of potentially acceding to that request, Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the requested Member State from drawing a distinction, on the basis of a rule of constitutional law, between its nationals and the nationals of other Member States and from granting that extradition whilst not permitting extradition of its own nationals, provided that the requested Member State has already put the competent authorities of the Member State of which the citizen is a national in a position to seek the surrender of that citizen pursuant to a European arrest warrant and the latter Member State has not taken any action in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

(Case C-258/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 31 - Liability of air carriers for checked baggage - Requirements as to the form and content of the written complaint sent to the air carrier - Complaint made electronically and recorded in the air carrier’s information system - Complaint made on behalf of the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo by an agent of the air carrier))

(2018/C 200/03)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finnair Oyj

Defendant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 31(4) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, within the periods referred to in Article 31(2) of that convention, the complaint must be made in writing, in accordance with Article 31(3) thereof, failing which no action may be brought against the carrier. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 31(4) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, within the periods referred to in Article 31(2) of that convention, the complaint must be made in writing, in accordance with Article 31(3) thereof, failing which no action may be brought against the carrier.

| 2. | A complaint, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, recorded in the information system of the air carrier, fulfils the requirement of being in a written form under Article 31(3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A complaint, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, recorded in the information system of the air carrier, fulfils the requirement of being in a written form under Article 31(3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999.

| 3. | Article 31(2) and (3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as not precluding the requirement of being in a written form from being regarded as fulfilled in the case where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the air carrier records in writing the declaration of loss either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s information system, provided that that passenger can check the accuracy of the text of the complaint, as taken down in writing and entered in that system, and can, where appropriate, amend or supplement it, or even replace it, before expiry of the period laid down in Article 31(2) of that convention. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 31(2) and (3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as not precluding the requirement of being in a written form from being regarded as fulfilled in the case where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the air carrier records in writing the declaration of loss either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s information system, provided that that passenger can check the accuracy of the text of the complaint, as taken down in writing and entered in that system, and can, where appropriate, amend or supplement it, or even replace it, before expiry of the period laid down in Article 31(2) of that convention.

| 4. | Article 31 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as not making a complaint subject to further substantive requirements in addition to that of giving notice to the air carrier of the damage sustained. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 31 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as not making a complaint subject to further substantive requirements in addition to that of giving notice to the air carrier of the damage sustained.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Germany, United Kingdom) — B v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero (C-424/16)

(Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 28(3)(a) - Enhanced protection against expulsion - Conditions - Right of permanent residence - Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State - Period of imprisonment - Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence - Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link - Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment))

(2018/C 200/04)

Language of the case: German and English

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: B (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-424/16)

Defendants: Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Franco Vomero (C-424/16)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 28(3)(a) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it is a prerequisite of eligibility for the protection against expulsion provided for in that provision that the person concerned must have a right of permanent residence within the meaning of Article 16 and Article 28(2) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 28(3)(a) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it is a prerequisite of eligibility for the protection against expulsion provided for in that provision that the person concerned must have a right of permanent residence within the meaning of Article 16 and Article 28(2) of that directive.

| 2. | Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a Union citizen who is serving a custodial sentence and against whom an expulsion decision is adopted, the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’ laid down in that provision may be satisfied where an overall assessment of the person’s situation, taking into account all the relevant aspects, leads to the conclusion that, notwithstanding that detention, the integrative links between the person concerned and the host Member State have not been broken. Those aspects include, inter alia, the strength of the integrative links forged with the host Member State before the detention of the person concerned, the nature of the offence that resulted in the period of detention imposed, the circumstances in which that offence was committed and the conduct of the person concerned throughout the period of detention. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a Union citizen who is serving a custodial sentence and against whom an expulsion decision is adopted, the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’ laid down in that provision may be satisfied where an overall assessment of the person’s situation, taking into account all the relevant aspects, leads to the conclusion that, notwithstanding that detention, the integrative links between the person concerned and the host Member State have not been broken. Those aspects include, inter alia, the strength of the integrative links forged with the host Member State before the detention of the person concerned, the nature of the offence that resulted in the period of detention imposed, the circumstances in which that offence was committed and the conduct of the person concerned throughout the period of detention.

| 3. | Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a person satisfies the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’, within the meaning of that provision, must be assessed at the date on which the initial expulsion decision is adopted. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a person satisfies the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’, within the meaning of that provision, must be assessed at the date on which the initial expulsion decision is adopted.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS

(Case C-320/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services in the field of transport - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Directive 98/34/EC - Information society services - Rule on information society services - Definition - Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys - Criminal penalties))

(2018/C 200/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

Party to the main criminal proceedings

Uber France SAS

Other party to the proceedings: Nabil Bensalem

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law that lays down criminal penalties for the organisation of a system for putting customers in contact with persons carrying passengers by road for remuneration using vehicles with fewer than 10 seats, without being authorised to do so, concerns a ‘service in the field of transport’ in so far as it applies to an intermediation service that is provided by means of a smartphone application and forms an integral part of an overall service the principal element of which is the transport service. Such a service is excluded from the scope of application of those directives.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV

(Case C-414/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/CE - Equal treatment - Difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief - Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief - Religion or belief constituting a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos - Concept - Nature and context of the activities - Article 17 TFEU - Articles 10, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2018/C 200/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vera Egenberger

Defendant: Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a church or other organisation whose ethos is based on religion or belief asserts, in support of an act or decision such as the rejection of an application for employment with it, that by reason of the nature of the activities concerned or the context in which the activities are to be carried out, religion constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation, it must be possible for such an assertion to be the subject, if need be, of effective judicial review by which it can be ensured that the criteria set out in Article 4(2) of that directive are satisfied in the particular case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a church or other organisation whose ethos is based on religion or belief asserts, in support of an act or decision such as the rejection of an application for employment with it, that by reason of the nature of the activities concerned or the context in which the activities are to be carried out, religion constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation, it must be possible for such an assertion to be the subject, if need be, of effective judicial review by which it can be ensured that the criteria set out in Article 4(2) of that directive are satisfied in the particular case.

| 2. | Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that the genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement it refers to is a requirement that is necessary and objectively dictated, having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation concerned, by the nature of the occupational activity concerned or the circumstances in which it is carried out, and cannot cover considerations which have no connection with that ethos or with the right of autonomy of the church or organisation. That requirement must comply with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that the genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement it refers to is a requirement that is necessary and objectively dictated, having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation concerned, by the nature of the occupational activity concerned or the circumstances in which it is carried out, and cannot cover considerations which have no connection with that ethos or with the right of autonomy of the church or organisation. That requirement must comply with the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | A national court hearing a dispute between two individuals is obliged, where it is not possible for it to interpret the applicable national law in conformity with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78, to ensure within its jurisdiction the judicial protection deriving for individuals from Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to guarantee the full effectiveness of those articles by disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A national court hearing a dispute between two individuals is obliged, where it is not possible for it to interpret the applicable national law in conformity with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78, to ensure within its jurisdiction the judicial protection deriving for individuals from Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to guarantee the full effectiveness of those articles by disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev

(Case C-478/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark - Relative grounds for refusal - Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade - Examination by the Board of Appeal - New or supplementary evidence - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1)))

(2018/C 200/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, P. Ivanov and D. Stoyanova- Valchanova, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Group OOD (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, advokati), Kosta Iliev (represented by: S. Ganeva, advokat)

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 78, 13.3.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-525/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU - Concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’ - Discriminatory prices on a downstream market - Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright - Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content))

(2018/C 200/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Other party to the proceedings: GDA — Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes, CRL

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’, for the purposes of subparagraph (c) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, must be interpreted to the effect that, where a dominant undertaking applies discriminatory prices to trade partners on the downstream market, it covers a situation in which that behaviour is capable of distorting competition between those trade partners. A finding of such a ‘competitive disadvantage’ does not require proof of actual quantifiable deterioration in the competitive situation, but must be based on an analysis of all the relevant circumstances of the case leading to the conclusion that that behaviour has an effect on the costs, profits or any other relevant interest of one or more of those partners, so that that conduct is such as to affect that situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB

(Case C-532/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Limitation of the right to deduct input tax - Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid - Supply of land - Mischaracterisation as ‘taxable activity’ - Indication of VAT on the initial invoice - Amendment of that indication by the supplier))

(2018/C 200/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant: SEB bankas AB

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to adjust undue value added tax (VAT) deductions set down in that article also applies to cases where the initial deduction could not be made lawfully because the transaction giving rise to that deduction was exempt from VAT. By contrast, Articles 187 to 189 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the mechanism for the adjustment of undue VAT deductions provided for in those articles is not applicable in such cases, in particular in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the initial VAT deduction was unjustified as it concerned a VAT-exempt transaction relating to the supply of land. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to adjust undue value added tax (VAT) deductions set down in that article also applies to cases where the initial deduction could not be made lawfully because the transaction giving rise to that deduction was exempt from VAT. By contrast, Articles 187 to 189 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the mechanism for the adjustment of undue VAT deductions provided for in those articles is not applicable in such cases, in particular in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the initial VAT deduction was unjustified as it concerned a VAT-exempt transaction relating to the supply of land.

| 2) | Article 186 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where the initial deduction of VAT could not be made lawfully, it is for the Member States to determine the date on which the obligation to adjust the undue VAT deduction arises and the time period for which that adjustment must be made, in accordance with the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. It is for the national court to determine whether, in cases such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those principles have been respected. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 186 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where the initial deduction of VAT could not be made lawfully, it is for the Member States to determine the date on which the obligation to adjust the undue VAT deduction arises and the time period for which that adjustment must be made, in accordance with the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. It is for the national court to determine whether, in cases such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those principles have been respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-541/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 - Article 2(6) - Article 8 - Cabotage operations - Definition - Definition contained in a ‘Questions and answers’ document drawn up by the European Commission - Legal force - National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation - Discretion - Restriction - Proportionality))

(2018/C 200/10)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, L. Grønfeldt and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Sønndahl Wolff, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

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

2)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-550/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 2(f) - Definition of ‘unaccompanied minor’ - Article 10(3)(a) - Right of a refugee to family reunification with his parents - Refugee below the age of 18 at the time of entry into the Member State and at the time of application for asylum, but over 18 at the time of the decision granting asylum and of his application for family reunification - Relevant date for assessing ‘minor’ status of the person concerned))

(2018/C 200/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(f) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina

(Case C-565/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Article 12(3)(b) - Acceptance of jurisdiction - Conditions))

(2018/C 200/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros

Parties to the main proceedings

Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina

Operative part of the judgment

In a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where the parents of a minor child, who are habitually resident with the latter in a Member State, have lodged, in the name of that child, an application for permission to renounce an inheritance before the courts of another Member State, Article 12(3)(b) of Council Regulation 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 as meaning:

| — | the joint lodging of proceedings by the parents of the child before the courts of their choice is an unequivocal acceptance by them of that court; |
| --- | --- |

—

the joint lodging of proceedings by the parents of the child before the courts of their choice is an unequivocal acceptance by them of that court;

| — | a prosecutor who, according to the national law, has the capacity of a party to the proceedings commenced by the parents, is a party to the proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003. Opposition by that party to the choice of jurisdiction made by the parents of the child in question, after the date on which the court was seised, precludes the acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at that date from being established. In the absence of such opposition, the agreement of that party may be regarded as implicit and the condition of the unequivocal acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at the date on which that court was seised may be held to be satisfied; and |
| --- | --- |

—

a prosecutor who, according to the national law, has the capacity of a party to the proceedings commenced by the parents, is a party to the proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003. Opposition by that party to the choice of jurisdiction made by the parents of the child in question, after the date on which the court was seised, precludes the acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at that date from being established. In the absence of such opposition, the agreement of that party may be regarded as implicit and the condition of the unequivocal acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at the date on which that court was seised may be held to be satisfied; and

| — | the fact that the residence of the deceased at the time of his death, his assets, which are the subject matter of the succession, and the liabilities of the succession were situated in the Member State of the chosen courts leads, in the absence of matters that might demonstrate that the prorogation of jurisdiction was liable to have a prejudicial impact on the child’s position, to the conclusion that that prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child. |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that the residence of the deceased at the time of his death, his assets, which are the subject matter of the succession, and the liabilities of the succession were situated in the Member State of the chosen courts leads, in the absence of matters that might demonstrate that the prorogation of jurisdiction was liable to have a prejudicial impact on the child’s position, to the conclusion that that prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Firma Hans Bühler KG v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

(Case C-580/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Place of intra-Community acquisition - Article 42 - Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply - Article 141 - Exemption - Triangular transaction - Simplification measures - Article 265 - Correction of recapitulative statement))

(2018/C 200/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Hans Bühler KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 141(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is met where the taxable person is resident and identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, but that that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 141(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is met where the taxable person is resident and identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, but that that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition.

| 2. | Articles 42 and 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, read in conjunction with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from applying the first paragraph of Article 41 of Directive 2006/112 solely on the ground that, in the context of an intra-Community acquisition, made for the purposes of a subsequent supply in the territory of a Member State, the recapitulative statement, referred to in Article 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, was not submitted in good time by the taxable person identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 42 and 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, read in conjunction with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from applying the first paragraph of Article 41 of Directive 2006/112 solely on the ground that, in the context of an intra-Community acquisition, made for the purposes of a subsequent supply in the territory of a Member State, the recapitulative statement, referred to in Article 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, was not submitted in good time by the taxable person identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

(Case C-645/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract - Article 17 - Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract))

(2018/C 200/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the indemnity and compensation regimes laid down by that article, in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively, in the event of termination of the commercial agency contract are applicable where termination occurs during the trial period provided for by the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

(Case C-8/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Right to deduct VAT - Period allowed by national law for exercising that right - Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment - The date from which the period starts to run))

(2018/C 200/15)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA

Defendant: Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and also the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which, following a tax adjustment, additional value added tax (VAT) was paid to the State and was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices several years after the supply of the goods in question, the right to deduct VAT is to be refused on the ground that the period laid down by that legislation for the exercise of that right started to run from the date of issue of those initial invoices and had expired.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

(Case C-13/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 10(2) - Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products - Qualifications of the safety assessor - Recognition of equivalent training courses - Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine - Member States’ discretion))

(2018/C 200/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

Defendant: Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the recognition of equivalence of courses, laid down in that provision, can cover courses other than those delivered in third countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the recognition of equivalence of courses, laid down in that provision, can cover courses other than those delivered in third countries.

| 2. | Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1223/2009 must be interpreted as conferring on each Member State the power to determine disciplines that are ‘similar’ to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine, as well as levels of qualification satisfying the requirements of that regulation, on condition that it complies with the objectives laid down by that regulation, consisting, in particular, in guaranteeing that the person entrusted with the assessment of the safety of cosmetic products has a qualification that enables him to ensure a high level of protection of human health. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1223/2009 must be interpreted as conferring on each Member State the power to determine disciplines that are ‘similar’ to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine, as well as levels of qualification satisfying the requirements of that regulation, on condition that it complies with the objectives laid down by that regulation, consisting, in particular, in guaranteeing that the person entrusted with the assessment of the safety of cosmetic products has a qualification that enables him to ensure a high level of protection of human health.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

(Case C-65/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Health and social services - Award contrary to the rules on public procurement - Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment - Concept of ‘certain cross-border interest’ - Directive 92/50/EEC - Article 27))

(2018/C 200/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oftalma Hospital Srl

Defendants: C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Torino (TO1)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | When awarding a public service contract that falls within the scope of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and is, consequently, in principle, subject only to Articles 14 and 16 of that directive, a contracting authority is nonetheless also required to comply with the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the consequent obligation of transparency, provided that, at the date of its award, the contract had certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

When awarding a public service contract that falls within the scope of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and is, consequently, in principle, subject only to Articles 14 and 16 of that directive, a contracting authority is nonetheless also required to comply with the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the consequent obligation of transparency, provided that, at the date of its award, the contract had certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to verify.

| 2. | Article 27(3) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as not applying to public service contracts referred to in Annex I B to that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 27(3) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as not applying to public service contracts referred to in Annex I B to that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL

(Case C-75/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Article 65 - Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law - Conditions - Sign of more than merely local significance - Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark))

(2018/C 200/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Residencial Palladium, SL (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-110/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Tax on the income of Belgian residents - Calculation of income from immovable property - Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated - Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium - Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) - Difference in treatment - Restriction on the free movement of capital))

(2018/C 200/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and N. Gossement, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: P. Cottin, M. Jacobs and L. Cornelis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented immovable property or immovable property rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes or to legal persons which make such property available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as immovable property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as immovable property located outside Belgium is concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented immovable property or immovable property rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes or to legal persons which make such property available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as immovable property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as immovable property located outside Belgium is concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

(Case C-148/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade-mark law - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 14 - Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark - Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 34(2) - Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark - Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark))

(2018/C 200/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

Defendant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which the invalidity or revocation of an earlier national mark, the seniority of which is claimed for an EU mark, may be established a posteriori only if the conditions for that invalidity or that revocation were met, not only on the date on which that earlier national mark was surrendered or the date on which it lapsed, but also on the date on which the judicial decision making that finding is taken.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

(Case C-152/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Directive 2004/17/EC - Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract - No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC - Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations - Article 3(3) TEU - Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Inadmissibility - Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Provision of national law not implementing EU law - Lack of jurisdiction))

(2018/C 200/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA

Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, and the general principles underlying that directive are to be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which do not provide for periodic price review after a contract has been awarded in the sectors covered by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17) v TUIfly GmbH

(Joined Cases C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Article 7(1) - Right to compensation - Exemption - ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ - ‘Wildcat strike’))

(2018/C 200/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring courts

Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17)

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’), such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which stems from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss

(Case C-227/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 - Spinal fixation systems - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014))

(2018/C 200/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medtronic GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that spinal fixation systems such as those at issue in the main proceedings may not be classified under subheading 9021 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are covered by another subheading of heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature. Whether those systems may be classified under subheading 9021 10 10 or subheading 9021 10 90 of the Combined Nomenclature will depend on the principal function they perform, which is a matter for the referring court to determine by having regard to the objective characteristics and properties of such systems as well as to their intended and actual use.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

(Case C-302/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Objectives - Free allocation of allowances - National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation))

(2018/C 200/24)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Bratislave (Slovakia)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PPC Power a.s.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which taxes, at 80 % of their value, greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge which have been sold or not used by the undertakings subject to the greenhouse gas emission trading scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta

(Case C-323/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Article 6(3) - Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project - Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose))

(2018/C 200/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman

Respondent: Coillte Teoranta

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, in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-441/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(1) and (3) - Article 12(1) - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Articles 4 and 5 - ‘Puszcza Białowieska’ Natura 2000 site - Amendment of the forest management plan - Increase in the volume of harvestable timber - Plan or project not directly necessary to the management of the site that is likely to have a significant effect on it - Appropriate assessment of the implications for the site - Adverse effect on the integrity of the site - Actual implementation of the conservation measures - Effects on the breeding sites and resting places of the protected species))

(2018/C 200/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, H. Krämer, K. Herrmann and E. Kružíková)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: J. Szyszko, Minister for the Environment, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents, and K. Tomaszewski, ekspert)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under:






  — | 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, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, by adopting an appendix to the forest management plan for the Białowieża Forest District without ascertaining that that appendix would not adversely affect the integrity of the site of Community importance and special protection area PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under:

—

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, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, by adopting an appendix to the forest management plan for the Białowieża Forest District without ascertaining that that appendix would not adversely affect the integrity of the site of Community importance and special protection area PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska;

| — | Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to establish the necessary conservation measures corresponding to the ecological requirements of (i) the natural habitat types listed in Annex I to Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and the species listed in Annex II to that directive, and (ii) the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and the regularly occurring migratory species not listed in that annex, for which the site of Community importance and special protection area PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska were designated; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to establish the necessary conservation measures corresponding to the ecological requirements of (i) the natural habitat types listed in Annex I to Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and the species listed in Annex II to that directive, and (ii) the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and the regularly occurring migratory species not listed in that annex, for which the site of Community importance and special protection area PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska were designated;

| — | Article 12(1)(a) and (d) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to guarantee the strict protection of certain saproxylic beetles, namely the goldstreifiger beetle (Buprestis splendens), the flat bark beetle (Cucujus cinnaberinus), the false darkling beetle (Phryganophilus ruficollis) and Pytho kolwensis, listed in Annex IV to that directive, that is to say, by failing effectively to prohibit the deliberate killing or disturbance of those beetles or the deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites in the Białowieża Forest District; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 12(1)(a) and (d) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to guarantee the strict protection of certain saproxylic beetles, namely the goldstreifiger beetle (Buprestis splendens), the flat bark beetle (Cucujus cinnaberinus), the false darkling beetle (Phryganophilus ruficollis) and Pytho kolwensis, listed in Annex IV to that directive, that is to say, by failing effectively to prohibit the deliberate killing or disturbance of those beetles or the deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites in the Białowieża Forest District; and

| — | Article 5(b) and (d) of Directive 2009/147, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to guarantee the protection of the species of birds referred to in Article 1 of that directive, including, in particular, the pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), the boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), the white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) and the three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), that is to say, by failing to ensure that they will not be killed or disturbed during the period of breeding and rearing and that their nests or eggs will not be deliberately destroyed, damaged or removed in the Białowieża Forest District; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5(b) and (d) of Directive 2009/147, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to guarantee the protection of the species of birds referred to in Article 1 of that directive, including, in particular, the pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), the boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), the white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) and the three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), that is to say, by failing to ensure that they will not be killed or disturbed during the period of breeding and rearing and that their nests or eggs will not be deliberately destroyed, damaged or removed in the Białowieża Forest District;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/21

---

Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by Red Bull GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15: Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-124/18 P)

(2018/C 200/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Red Bull GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt, S. Petivlasova, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Marques, Optimum Mark sp. z o.o.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision of 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision of 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15,

| — | annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of 2 December 2014 in Cases R 2037/2013-1 and R 2036/2013-1, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of 2 December 2014 in Cases R 2037/2013-1 and R 2036/2013-1, and

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court's (GC) interpretation of Article 7(1)(a) and 4 CTMR (1), in the context of colour combination marks, infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. The GC improperly imposed a new and disproportionate requirement for the graphic representation of colour combination marks based on the erroneous premise that such marks are intrinsically less precise in nature. First, this premise is without any legal basis and does not correspond to any of the objects set forth in the legislation, and has the effect that it unlawfully and disproportionally discriminates against colour combination marks vis-à-vis all other types of trade marks, such as single colour marks, word marks, design marks and others. Second, the criteria set out in the contested decision goes against the nature of colour combination marks per se, which, as clearly accepted by this Court in Libertel (2), are not spatially delimited. The contested decision effectively limits colour combination marks per se to figurative, position or pattern marks in colour. Third, the contested decision potentially renders more than 85 % of colour combination marks of the type of the contested marks on the defendant's register invalid.

In its second plea, the appellant submits that the GC infringed Article 7(1)(a) and 4 CTMR due to an incorrect and impermissible interpretation of the Heidelberger Bauchemie (3) judgment in that it imposed three cumulative requirements for the graphic representation of colour combination marks, namely (i) the precise shades of the colours in question, (ii) the ratios of the colours in question and (iii) the spatial arrangement of the colours. These requirements were not essential to that decision, and have a disproportionately harsh effect solely on the category or class of marks or signs consisting of colour combination or colour, per se, signs. Moreover, the third, and newly imposed, cumulative requirement is said to be justified by the alleged ‘limited intrinsic ability of colours to convey precise meaning’. However, the latter was until now reviewed under the distinctiveness limb of the registerability test of a mark and not under the graphic representation requirement, which means that from the outset it results in the invalidity of a registration without an option to show acquired distinctiveness or otherwise cure it. The contested decision also infringes Article 4 CTMR by requiring an ‘explicit’ description for the type of marks at issue and by unlawfully reducing the effective definition of such marks only to those having one spatial (in other words figurative) arrangement corresponding to the supposed actual subsequent use of the mark.

In its third plea, the appellant submits that the GC infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation by failing to appreciate and take into account in its decision that the first contested mark was filed prior to the Heidelberger Bauchemie judgment and thus disregarding the potential application of the principles set out by the Court's rulings in Lambretta (4) and Cactus (5). It also infringed this principle by not carrying out an overall assessment of authorised and reliable sources, applicable rules and provisions, case law of the EU and the defendant’s Guidelines to determine if all the relevant circumstances of the present case could cumulatively give rise to the finding that the defendant gave the appellant precise, unconditional and consistent assurances, which the appellant relied upon by complying with their terms, which led to the entertaining of a valid legitimate expectation on the appellant's part.

In its fourth plea, the appellant submits that the GC infringed the principle of proportionality by not considering the disproportionality of the cancellation of both contested marks in the exceptional circumstances of the present case. In particular, the GC failed to consider that the objectives of precision and clarity, as well as legal certainty, could legitimately be met if the appellant was invited and permitted to clarify the description of both marks so that they remained on the register, rather than cancelling both registrations.

In its fifth plea, the appellant submits that the GC breached its rules of procedure by incorrectly applying Article 134(1) of the rules and ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings. The exceptional circumstances of the present case and the principle of equity require, according to Article 135(1) of the rules of procedure, that the appellant should not be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings (and that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant).

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 6 May 2003, Libertel, C-104/01, EU:C:2003:244.

(3)  Judgment of 24 June 2004, Heidelberger Bauchemie, C-49/02, EU:C:2004:384.

(4)  Judgment of 16 February 2017, Brandconcern BV v. EUIPO and Scooters India (Lambretta), C-577/14 P, EU:C:2017:122.

(5)  Judgment of 11 October 2017, EUIPO v. Cactus SA (Cactus), C-501/15 P, EU:C:2017:750.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/22

---

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-207/18)

(2018/C 200/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, G. von Rintelen and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016 at the latest, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016 at the latest, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

| — | impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 123 928,64, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt, or, in any event, to notify to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 123 928,64, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt, or, in any event, to notify to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU;

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

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 10 April 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, and immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

Given that the Kingdom of Spain has failed fully to transpose Directive 2014/26/EU and has failed to notify the Commission of the transposition measures, the Commission has instituted the present proceedings before the Court of Justice.

The Commission proposes that the Kingdom of Spain should be ordered to pay, from the date of delivery of the judgment, a daily penalty of EUR 123 928,64, calculated with due regard to the seriousness and duration of the infringement as well as to the need to ensure a deterrent effect in the light of the financial capacity of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

(Case C-208/18)

(2018/C 200/29)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jana Petruchová

Defendant: FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

Question referred

Is Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who engages in trade on FOREX, the international currency exchange market, on the basis of actively placing his own orders, although through a third party who is professionally engaged in that trade, must be regarded as a consumer under that provision?

---

(1)  OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/24

---

Action brought on 11 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-250/18)

(2018/C 200/30)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Croatia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to specify that the stone aggregate deposited in the Biljane Donje landfill is waste, rather than a by-product, and must therefore be treated as waste, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to specify that the stone aggregate deposited in the Biljane Donje landfill is waste, rather than a by-product, and must therefore be treated as waste, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98; (1)

| — | declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98;

| — | declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the holder of the waste deposited in the landfill of Biljane Donje carried out the treatment of waste himself or had the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking that carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the holder of the waste deposited in the landfill of Biljane Donje carried out the treatment of waste himself or had the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking that carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98;

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

—

order the Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards the infringement of Article 5(1) of the Directive:

Article 5(1) of the Directive lays down cumulative criteria that must all be fulfilled in order for a substance or object resulting from a production process the primary aim of which is not the production of that substance or object to be considered a by-product rather than as waste. The Republic of Croatia incorrectly applied Article 5(1) to the waste deposited in Biljane Donje, given that it failed to determine that it constituted waste instead of a by-product even though further use of the waste was not certain, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the Directive.

As regards the infringement of Article 13 of the Directive:

Under Article 13 of the Directive, Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment. Even though the Croatian authorities established that the Biljane Donje landfill is situated on a site that is neither designated nor prepared for the deposit of waste and on land lacking protecting measures against water or air propagation, none of the measures adopted by the Croatian authorities in relation to the landfill has been implemented to date. That situation has remained unchanged for a long period of time, resulting in environmental deterioration. Thus, the Republic of Croatia has failed to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment.

As regards the infringement of Article 15(1) of the Directive:

Under Article 15(1) of the Directive, Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that any original waste producer or other holder carries out the treatment of waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the Directive. The Croatian authorities have failed to ensure that the holder of the waste carried out the treatment of waste or had the treatment handled by one of the persons referred to in Article 15(1). This is clear from the fact that, at the time of filing of the present proceedings, the waste was still, unlawfully, in Biljane Donje, where it has been for a long time. The Croatian authorities have failed to put in place effective measures to ensure that the holder of the waste carries out the treatment of waste himself or has it handled by one of the persons referred to in Article 15(1) of the Directive.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3; ‘the Directive’).

---

General Court

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)

(Case T-554/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MESSI - Earlier EU word marks MASSI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1011)))

(2018/C 200/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: initially J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, then J.-B. Devaureix and J.-Y. Teindas Maillard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially O. Mondéjar Ortuño, then S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Ceballos Rodríguez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between J-M.-E.V. e hijos and M. Messi Cuccittini.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO, in addition to its own costs, to bear those incurred by Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO, in addition to its own costs, to bear those incurred by Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini;

| 3. | Orders J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission

(Case T-561/14) (1)

((Institutional law - European Citizens’ Initiative - Research policy - Public health - Development cooperation - EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos - Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Actions for annulment - Capacity to bring legal proceedings - Challengeable act - Partial inadmissibility - Judicial review - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 200/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented initially by: C. de La Hougue, and subsequently by J. Paillot, lawyers, and finally by P. Diamond, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szwarc, A. Miłkowska and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: U. Rösslein and E. Waldherr, and subsequently by U. Rösslein and R. Crowe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final of 28 May 2014 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Uno di noi’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission

(Case T-43/15) (1)

((Protected geographical indication - Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola - Registration procedure - Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities - Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin - Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 - Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration - Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 - Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court - Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries - Principle of sound administration - Effective judicial protection))

(2018/C 200/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented initially by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi and subsequently by: G. Forte and C. Marinuzzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Bianchi, J. Guillem Carrau and F. Moro, and subsequently by: D. Bianchi, A. Lewis and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and M. Scino, avvocato dello Stato), Consorzio di Promozione e Tutela della Piadina Romagnola (Co.P.Rom) (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and P. Rodilosso, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)) (OJ 2014 L 316, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CRM srl to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CRM srl to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB

(Case T-251/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA - Implied refusal to grant access - Express refusal to grant access - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies - Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State - Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to opinions intended for internal use - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 200/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented: initially by R. Oliveira, N. Cunha Barnabé and S. Estima Martins, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Soares Romão, J. Shearman de Macedo and D. Castanheira Pereira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented: initially by F. Malfrère and S. Lambrinoc, and subsequently by F. Malfrère and T. Filipova, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment, on the one hand, of the ECB’s decision of 1 April 2015 refusing in part to disclose certain documents relating to its decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA and, on the other hand, of the implied decision refusing to grant access to those documents.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 1 April 2015 partially refusing to disclose certain documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA, in so far as it refuses to disclose the amount of credit indicated in the extracts of the minutes recording the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 July 2014 and the information redacted from the proposals of the Executive Board of the ECB of 28 July and 1 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 1 April 2015 partially refusing to disclose certain documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA, in so far as it refuses to disclose the amount of credit indicated in the extracts of the minutes recording the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 July 2014 and the information redacted from the proposals of the Executive Board of the ECB of 28 July and 1 August 2014;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA and the ECB to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA and the ECB to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission

(Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies - Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof - Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates - Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction - Action for annulment - Severable nature of the suspension order - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Principle of loyal cooperation - Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))

(2018/C 200/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment, in part, of, first, Commission decision C(2015) 4805 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA.41187 (2015/NN) — Hungary — Health contribution of tobacco industry businesses (OJ 2015 C 277, p. 24), and, second, of Commission decision C(2015) 4808 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 40018 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — Amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee (OJ 2015 C 277, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

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

2.

Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-752/15) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV) - Rejection of the tender of a tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low tender - Award criteria - Manifest errors of assessment - Non-contractual liability))

(2018/C 200/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude, A. Kyratsou and S. Lejeune, and subsequently by: S. Delaude, A. Kyratsou and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents

Re:

ACTION, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2015 to reject the applicants’ tender submitted in relation to open procurement procedure No DIGIT/R3/PO/2015/0008, entitled ‘Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV)’, in respect of Lot 3 on ‘information system and Web infrastructure solutions development, support, engineering and testing’ and, second, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm caused by that decision which the applicants claim to have sustained

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence and Others v ECB

(Joined Cases T-133/16 to T-136/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(e) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Person effectively directing the business of a credit institution - Article 13(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU and the second paragraph of Article L. 511-13 of the French Monetary and Financial Code - Prohibition on combining the role of chairman of the management body of a credit institution in its supervisory function with the role of chief executive officer of the same establishment - Article 88(1)(e) of Directive 2013/36 and Article L. 511-58 of the French Monetary and Financial Code))

(2018/C 200/37)

Language of the cases: French

Parties

Applicant in Case T-133/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence (Aix-en-Provence, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-134/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées (Albi, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-135/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres (Saintes, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-136/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie (Amiens, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Karpf and C. Hernández Saseta, acting as Agents, and by A. Heinzmann, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Actions pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of ECB decisions, respectively,

ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/98,

ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/100,

ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/101 and

ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/99, of 29 January 2016, adopted pursuant to Article 4(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), Article 93 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the ECB of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the ECB and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1) and Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the Code monétaire et financier français (French Monetary and Financial Code).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence, the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées, the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres and the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie to bear their own respective costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence, the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées, the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres and the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie to bear their own respective costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council

(Case T-190/16) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Rights of the defence - Principle of good administration - Misuse of power - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 200/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

(Case T-248/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CHATKA - Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain) (represented by: S. García Cabezas and R. Fernández Iglesias, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 150/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Romanov Holding and Walfood.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky)

(Case T-288/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark M’Cooky - Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 200/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Convivo GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C. A. Pronaca (Quito, Ecuador)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 (Case R 1039/2015-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C. A. Pronaca and Convivo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Convivo GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Convivo GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

(Case T-312/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHATKA - Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain) (represented by: S. García Cabezas and R. Fernández Iglesias, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 2870/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Romanov Holding and Walfood.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales)

(Case T-426/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Aa AROMAS artesanales - Earlier EU figurative mark Aromas PERFUMARIA Beleza em todos os sentidos - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Relevant public - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aromas Selective, SL (Dos Hermanas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2016 (Case R 766/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aromas Selective and Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Aromas Selective, SL, including the costs necessarily incurred by Aromas Selective, SL, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Aromas Selective, SL, including the costs necessarily incurred by Aromas Selective, SL, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission

(Case T-468/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages - Partial refusal of access - Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist - Presumption of lawfulness - Error of law - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 200/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verein Deutsche Sprache eV (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3714 final of 10 June 2016 relating to a request for access, made by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Verein Deutsche Sprache eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Verein Deutsche Sprache eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T-747/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Social security - Opinion of the Invalidity Committee - Discretion of Appointing Authority - Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 200/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 refusing to recognise the applicant’s permanent total incapacity and to declare that he is to be retired.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Guillaume Vincenti to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Guillaume Vincenti to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis)

(Case T-756/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a trellis - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Disclosure of earlier design - Lack of novelty - No individual character - Articles 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2018/C 200/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Euro Castor Green (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Netlon France (Saint-Saulve, France) (represented by: C. Berto, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 754/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Netlon France and Euro Castor Green.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Euro Castor Green to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Euro Castor Green to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger

(Case T-763/16) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Staff of EU international missions - Disputes concerning employment contracts - Internal investigation procedures - Protection of victims in cases where a claim of harassment has been made - Contractual liability))

(2018/C 200/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PY (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (Niamey, Niger) (represented by: E. Raoult and M. Vicente Hernandez, lawyers)

Re:

Action based on Article 272 TFEU seeking an order requiring EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm allegedly suffered by the latter as a result of a breach of contract by EUCAP Sahel Niger.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay to PY the sum of EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay to PY the sum of EUR 10 000;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by PY. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by PY.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM)

(Case T-831/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ZOOM - Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, K. Sidat Humphreys and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leedsworld, Inc. (New Kensington, Pennsylvania, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld, Inc; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld, Inc;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume)

(Case T-183/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a man in regional costume - Earlier national industrial designs - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use of the EU trade mark prohibited under national law - Application of national law by EUIPO))

(2018/C 200/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Menta y Limón Decoración, SL (Argame, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Santa Cruz de La Palma, Spain) (represented by: M.J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 510/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Menta y Limón Decoración and Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Menta y Limón Decoración, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Menta y Limón Decoración, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)

(Case T-207/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark hp - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1001/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)

(Case T-208/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark HP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1002/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

(Case T-213/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ROMANTIK - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Lenz and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy) (represented by: A. Wittwer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 (Case R 1257/2016-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Hotel Preidlhof and Romantik Hotels & Restaurants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz)

(Case T-220/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark 100 % Pfalz - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG (Mutterstadt, Germany) (represented by: C. Gehweiler and C. Weber, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2017 (Case R 1549/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign 100 % Pfalz as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Mémora Servicios Funerarios v EUIPO — Chatenoud (MEMORAME)

(Case T-221/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MEMORAME - Earlier EU figurative mark mémora and earlier national word marks MÉMORA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mémora Servicios Funerarios SLU (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and J. Gallego Jiménez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Georges Chatenoud (Thiviers, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 (Case R 1308/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mémora Servicios Funerarios and Mr Chatenoud.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mémora Servicios Funerarios SLU to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mémora Servicios Funerarios SLU to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)

(Case T-297/17) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration - Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 200/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 (Case R 1595/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2017 (Case 1595/2016-4) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES for services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Advertising; commercial management services; secretariat services; wholesale service in the field of metallic construction products; commercial administration’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2017 (Case 1595/2016-4) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES for services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Advertising; commercial management services; secretariat services; wholesale service in the field of metallic construction products; commercial administration’;

| 2. | Rejects the remainder of the form of order sought of VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the remainder of the form of order sought of VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG;

| 3. | Orders VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG and EUIPO each to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG and EUIPO each to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)

(Case T-354/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 200/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States of America) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 (Case R 1682/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Genomic Health, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Genomic Health, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/43

---

Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex

(Case T-212/18)

(2018/C 200/56)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Karolina Romańska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Tetkowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application both admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application both admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision of 14 June 2017 of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, headquartered in Warsaw, terminating Karolina Romańska’s employment contract on the basis of Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 14 June 2017 of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, headquartered in Warsaw, terminating Karolina Romańska’s employment contract on the basis of Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;

| — | find that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against Karolina Romańska; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against Karolina Romańska;

| — | require the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to cease committing acts of discrimination and harassment against its workers and to introduce an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy within the Agency; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to cease committing acts of discrimination and harassment against its workers and to introduce an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy within the Agency;

| — | order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay Karolina Romańska damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 100 000, by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay Karolina Romańska damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 100 000, by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay damages in the amount of PLN 4 402 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay damages in the amount of PLN 4 402 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered;

| — | order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against the applicant. During the time she was employed by the defendant, the applicant was the victim of harassment, humiliation, scapegoating, public humiliation and other abusive conduct within her sector, of which her superiors were aware but in respect of which no action was taken. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against the applicant. During the time she was employed by the defendant, the applicant was the victim of harassment, humiliation, scapegoating, public humiliation and other abusive conduct within her sector, of which her superiors were aware but in respect of which no action was taken.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the harassment at the Agency triggered a health disorder. In April 2016 the applicant suffered a sudden and acute health disorder, as confirmed by her medical records and for which she is still undergoing treatment. The doctors established that this health disorder was nervous in origin, caused in particular by harassment at work and burn out. The applicant incurred the medical expenses which are set out in the medical records appended to the application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the harassment at the Agency triggered a health disorder. In April 2016 the applicant suffered a sudden and acute health disorder, as confirmed by her medical records and for which she is still undergoing treatment. The doctors established that this health disorder was nervous in origin, caused in particular by harassment at work and burn out. The applicant incurred the medical expenses which are set out in the medical records appended to the application.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a failure to provide assistance in connection with harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency. The applicant turned to the defendant for assistance, as referred to in the EU Staff Regulations, in connection with harassment and discrimination at the Agency. The applicant submitted a series of suggestions to the defendant as to how the situation might, in her view, be acceptably resolved. The defendant ignored the issue of the applicant’s health and remained passive, tolerating a situation that was deleterious to the applicant and allowing that situation to continue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to provide assistance in connection with harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency. The applicant turned to the defendant for assistance, as referred to in the EU Staff Regulations, in connection with harassment and discrimination at the Agency. The applicant submitted a series of suggestions to the defendant as to how the situation might, in her view, be acceptably resolved. The defendant ignored the issue of the applicant’s health and remained passive, tolerating a situation that was deleterious to the applicant and allowing that situation to continue.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant by the defendant on the basis of her gender, nationality and trade union membership. The applicant repeatedly applied for a higher position at the Agency. Notwithstanding her extensive education, command of several foreign languages, excellent annual appraisals and continuing efforts to improve her qualifications, the applicant was never promoted. The reasons for this state of affairs are discriminatory. Following the applicant’s repeated contact with the defendant concerning the acts of harassment and discrimination suffered by her, the defendant proposed that the applicant go on a mission, for which she made all the necessary preparations, including learning a foreign language from scratch to the level of being able to communicate in that language, and then the defendant cancelled the mission four days prior to departure. The defendant justified the cancellation of the mission on the grounds of the applicant’s contact with a trade union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant by the defendant on the basis of her gender, nationality and trade union membership. The applicant repeatedly applied for a higher position at the Agency. Notwithstanding her extensive education, command of several foreign languages, excellent annual appraisals and continuing efforts to improve her qualifications, the applicant was never promoted. The reasons for this state of affairs are discriminatory. Following the applicant’s repeated contact with the defendant concerning the acts of harassment and discrimination suffered by her, the defendant proposed that the applicant go on a mission, for which she made all the necessary preparations, including learning a foreign language from scratch to the level of being able to communicate in that language, and then the defendant cancelled the mission four days prior to departure. The defendant justified the cancellation of the mission on the grounds of the applicant’s contact with a trade union.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed. The applicant’s dismissal was unfair and unsubstantiated. The termination of the employment contract was the result of the applicant’s refusal to accept a situation in which she was subjected to harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed. The applicant’s dismissal was unfair and unsubstantiated. The termination of the employment contract was the result of the applicant’s refusal to accept a situation in which she was subjected to harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/44

---

Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission

(Case T-226/18)

(2018/C 200/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, United States), Wacker Chemie AG (Munich, Germany), Momentive Performance Materials GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany), Shin-Etsu Silicones Europea BV (Almere, Netherlands), Elkem Silicones France SAS (Lyon, France) (represented by: M. Navin-Jones, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Contested Act under Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Contested Act under Article 263 TFEU;

| — | Declare that Annex XIII of the REACH Regulation, and/or relevant provisions of this Annex (in particular, Sections 1.1.2 and/or 1.2.2), are illegal and inapplicable in the case at hand, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, insofar as they prevent or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion on the properties of D4 and D5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that Annex XIII of the REACH Regulation, and/or relevant provisions of this Annex (in particular, Sections 1.1.2 and/or 1.2.2), are illegal and inapplicable in the case at hand, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, insofar as they prevent or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion on the properties of D4 and D5;

| — | In the event that: (a) the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) Member State Committee's Opinion of Apri12015; (b) the ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment's Opinion of March 2016; (c) the ECHA Socio-Economic Assessment Committee Opinion of June 2016; (d) the ECHA PBT Expert Group conclusions / decisions of November 2012; and/or (e) relevant ECHA Guidance — are not regarded as preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the Contested Act — to declare those acts as illegal and inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event that: (a) the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) Member State Committee's Opinion of Apri12015; (b) the ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment's Opinion of March 2016; (c) the ECHA Socio-Economic Assessment Committee Opinion of June 2016; (d) the ECHA PBT Expert Group conclusions / decisions of November 2012; and/or (e) relevant ECHA Guidance — are not regarded as preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the Contested Act — to declare those acts as illegal and inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants regarding these proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants regarding these proceedings; and

| — | Take any other measure as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take any other measure as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and failure to state reasons — regarding the risk assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and failure to state reasons — regarding the risk assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, and arbitrary decision-making — regarding the hazard assessment. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, and arbitrary decision-making — regarding the hazard assessment. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and lack of adequate statement of reasons — regarding the hazard assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and lack of adequate statement of reasons — regarding the hazard assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal certainty, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal certainty, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging denial of the rights of defence, including the right to be heard; lack of adequate statement of reasons; due process — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging denial of the rights of defence, including the right to be heard; lack of adequate statement of reasons; due process — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an act manifestly exceeding the limits of discretionary powers; manifest error in the exercise in the exercise of discretionary powers and breach of the institutional balance of powers — regarding the hazard and risk assessment. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an act manifestly exceeding the limits of discretionary powers; manifest error in the exercise in the exercise of discretionary powers and breach of the institutional balance of powers — regarding the hazard and risk assessment.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest exceedance of the limits of discretionary powers, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, and the manifest errors of appreciation of the relevant facts and of the relevant provisions in law. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest exceedance of the limits of discretionary powers, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, and the manifest errors of appreciation of the relevant facts and of the relevant provisions in law.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, lack of adequate statement of reasons, manifest errors of fact and law — regarding the adoption, application, meaning, and scope, of the REACH Restriction. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, lack of adequate statement of reasons, manifest errors of fact and law — regarding the adoption, application, meaning, and scope, of the REACH Restriction.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality — regarding the application and scope of the REACH Restriction. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality — regarding the application and scope of the REACH Restriction.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, illegality, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest errors in fact and law, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — before the adoption of the REACH Restriction. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, illegality, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest errors in fact and law, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — before the adoption of the REACH Restriction.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the relevant provisions of Annex XIII REACH and other relevant previous acts and measures, which prevent and/or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion of the properties of D4 and D5, are inapplicable according to Article 277 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the relevant provisions of Annex XIII REACH and other relevant previous acts and measures, which prevent and/or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion of the properties of D4 and D5, are inapplicable according to Article 277 TFEU.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/46

---

Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

(Case T-231/18)

(2018/C 200/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Romiţan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Djili — Application for registration No 15 497 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 in Case R 1902/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject Lupu Victor’s appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject Lupu Victor’s appeal;

| — | order the opponent and the appellant Lupu Victor to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the opponent and the appellant Lupu Victor to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was an aural similarity between the signs; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was an aural similarity between the signs;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the conceptual comparison had no relevance in the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the conceptual comparison had no relevance in the case.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/46

---

Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission

(Case T-240/18)

(2018/C 200/59)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 12 December 2017 in Case M.8672 (EASYJET / CERTAIN AIR BERLIN ASSETS), ref. C(2017) 8776 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 12 December 2017 in Case M.8672 (EASYJET / CERTAIN AIR BERLIN ASSETS), ref. C(2017) 8776 final;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | require the Commission to address, in the context of its statement in defence, certain questions raised by the applicant concerning the manner in which the assessment of the effects on competition of the concentration concerned was carried out, and to provide certain evidence serving as the basis for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

require the Commission to address, in the context of its statement in defence, certain questions raised by the applicant concerning the manner in which the assessment of the effects on competition of the concentration concerned was carried out, and to provide certain evidence serving as the basis for its decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (‘the Treaty’) and the provisions for its implementation, in particular those of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) by failing to carry out a full assessment of the adverse effects of the concentration concerned from the point of view of competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (‘the Treaty’) and the provisions for its implementation, in particular those of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) by failing to carry out a full assessment of the adverse effects of the concentration concerned from the point of view of competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the impact of the concentration concerned with regard to the possibility of providing passenger air transport services to and from certain airports, thereby committing a serious and manifest error in its assessment of that concentration. A properly conducted analysis of the concentration concerned would necessarily have led to the conclusion that its implementation will have a series of negative effects on competition, and that it will have a greater negative impact on competition than the absence of a concentration in the opposite scenario. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the impact of the concentration concerned with regard to the possibility of providing passenger air transport services to and from certain airports, thereby committing a serious and manifest error in its assessment of that concentration. A properly conducted analysis of the concentration concerned would necessarily have led to the conclusion that its implementation will have a series of negative effects on competition, and that it will have a greater negative impact on competition than the absence of a concentration in the opposite scenario.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the ‘Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers’ by failing to examine whether the efficiency gains achieved by the concentration concerned offset the negative effects of that concentration on competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the ‘Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers’ by failing to examine whether the efficiency gains achieved by the concentration concerned offset the negative effects of that concentration on competition.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its implementation by failing to impose requirements on easyJet designed to prevent the significant distortion of effective competition by the concentration concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its implementation by failing to impose requirements on easyJet designed to prevent the significant distortion of effective competition by the concentration concerned.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its implementation by failing to carry out an assessment of the impact of the concentration concerned on the internal market in the context of the State aid in the amount of EUR 150 million previously granted to Air Berlin on 15 August 2017 by the Federal Republic of Germany. That aid was approved by the Commission by Commission Decision C(2017) 6080 final of 4 September 2017 approving the State aid granted to Air Berlin by the Federal Republic of Germany. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its implementation by failing to carry out an assessment of the impact of the concentration concerned on the internal market in the context of the State aid in the amount of EUR 150 million previously granted to Air Berlin on 15 August 2017 by the Federal Republic of Germany. That aid was approved by the Commission by Commission Decision C(2017) 6080 final of 4 September 2017 approving the State aid granted to Air Berlin by the Federal Republic of Germany.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU by providing an inadequate statement of reasons in its decision, as demonstrated by, inter alia, the failure to carry out a full analysis of the facts of the case, the failure to take account of a series of elements needed to provide a reliable verification of the full impact of the concentration on competition, the failure to carry out an assessment of the impact of that concentration on the internal market in the context of the State aid previously granted to Air Berlin, and the failure to provide any grounds for not carrying out such an assessment. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU by providing an inadequate statement of reasons in its decision, as demonstrated by, inter alia, the failure to carry out a full analysis of the facts of the case, the failure to take account of a series of elements needed to provide a reliable verification of the full impact of the concentration on competition, the failure to carry out an assessment of the impact of that concentration on the internal market in the context of the State aid previously granted to Air Berlin, and the failure to provide any grounds for not carrying out such an assessment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/47

---

Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Benavides Torres v Council

(Case T-245/18)

(2018/C 200/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his role as General Commander of the Bolivarian National Guard, is responsible for serious human rights violations allegedly committed by the Bolivarian National Guard and undermined the rule of law in Venezuela. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his role as General Commander of the Bolivarian National Guard, is responsible for serious human rights violations allegedly committed by the Bolivarian National Guard and undermined the rule of law in Venezuela.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/48

---

Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Moreno Pérez v Council

(Case T-246/18)

(2018/C 200/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maikel José Moreno Pérez (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his roles as President and former Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, has supported and facilitated the Government’s actions and policies which have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, and is responsible for actions and statements that have usurped the authority of the National Assembly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his roles as President and former Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, has supported and facilitated the Government’s actions and policies which have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, and is responsible for actions and statements that have usurped the authority of the National Assembly.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/48

---

Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Lucena Ramírez v Council

(Case T-247/18)

(2018/C 200/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tibisay Lucena Ramírez (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the Applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the Applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the Council made an error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s actions and policies have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the Council made an error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s actions and policies have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/49

---

Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Cabello Rondón v Conseil

(Case T-248/18)

(2018/C 200/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diosdado Cabello Rondón (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made an error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant is involved in undermining democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made an error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant is involved in undermining democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.

---

| 11.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/50

---

Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Saab Halabi v Council

(Case T-249/18)

(2018/C 200/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tarek William Saab Halabi (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

—

order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council did not prove the existence of the conditions for his listing and committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that, in his role as attorney general and previous roles as ombudsman and president of the Republican Moral Council, the applicant has undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council did not prove the existence of the conditions for his listing and committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that, in his role as attorney general and previous roles as ombudsman and president of the Republican Moral Council, the applicant has undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.

---