# Official Journal C 374/6 No

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 374 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 606 November 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 374

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 606 November 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2017/C 374/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 374/01

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 |
| 2017/C 374/02 | Case C-413/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Intel Corp. v European Commission, Association for Competitive Technology Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) (Appeal — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Loyalty rebates — Commission’s jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19) | 2 |
| 2017/C 374/03 | Case C-331/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of investigations — Directive 98/34/EC — Articles 8 and 9 — Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation — Refusal to grant access) | 2 |
| 2017/C 374/04 | Case C-465/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Scope — Article 2(4)(b) — Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction — Concept) | 3 |
| 2017/C 374/05 | Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Slovak Republic (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1601 — Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic — Emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into certain Member States — Relocation of those nationals to other Member States — Relocation quotas — Article 78(3) TFEU — Legal basis — Conditions under which applicable — Concept of legislative act — Article 289(3) TFEU — Whether conclusions adopted by the European Council are binding on the Council of the European Union — Article 15(1) TEU and Article 68 TFEU — Essential procedural requirements — Amendment of the European Commission’s proposal — Requirements for a further consultation of the European Parliament and a unanimous vote within the Council of the European Union — Article 293 TFEU — Principles of legal certainty and of proportionality) | 4 |
| 2017/C 374/06 | Case C-6/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Withholding tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5(1) — Exemption — Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of third States — Presumption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse) | 5 |
| 2017/C 374/07 | Case C-174/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — H. v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave — Clause 5(1) and (2) — Return from parental leave — Right to return to the same job or an equivalent or similar job — Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired to be maintained as they stand — Civil servant of a Land promoted to civil servant on probation in a managerial post — Rules of that Land providing for the ending of the probationary period by operation of law and with no possibility of extension on expiry of a two-year period, even in the case of absence as a result of parental leave — Incompatibility — Consequences) | 5 |
| 2017/C 374/08 | Case C-247/16: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Notion of contract of sale — Inapplicability of that directive — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 6 |
| 2017/C 374/09 | Case C-248/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Concentrations between undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 3(1)(b) and (4) — Scope — Definition of concentration — Change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint — Creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity) | 7 |
| 2017/C 374/10 | Case C-506/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Directive 84/5/EEC — Directive 90/232/EEC — Driver responsible for the accident which caused the death of his spouse, a passenger in the vehicle — National legislation excluding compensation for material damage suffered by the driver responsible for the accident) | 7 |
| 2017/C 374/11 | Case C-559/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann v Brussels Airlines SA/NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7(1) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Flight consisting of several legs — Concept of distance to be taken into account) | 8 |
| 2017/C 374/12 | Case C-270/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Reasons for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — Trial resulting in the decision — Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance — Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case — Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings) | 9 |
| 2017/C 374/13 | Case C-271/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — Trial resulting in the decision — Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously — Decision handing down a cumulative sentence — Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person — Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal — Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings — Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard — Consequences for the executing judicial authority) | 10 |
| 2017/C 374/14 | Case C-473/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State where he risks being subjected to the death penalty — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection against extradition) | 11 |
| 2017/C 374/15 | Case C-87/17 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 July 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions — Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature) | 11 |
| 2017/C 374/16 | Joined Cases C-177/17 and C-178/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17) v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Lack of a sufficiently close connection — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 12 |
| 2017/C 374/17 | Case C-187/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice) | 12 |
| 2017/C 374/18 | Case C-440/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern | 13 |
| 2017/C 374/19 | Case C-454/17 PP: Appeal brought on 27 July 2017 by Vincent Piessevaux against the judgment delivered on 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16 Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union | 14 |
| 2017/C 374/20 | Case C-471/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover | 15 |
| 2017/C 374/21 | Case C-484/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 10 August 2017 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 15 |
| 2017/C 374/22 | Case C-486/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB) | 16 |
| 2017/C 374/23 | Case C-487/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Verlezza and Others | 16 |
| 2017/C 374/24 | Case C-488/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Carmelina Scaglione | 17 |
| 2017/C 374/25 | Case C-489/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against MAD Srl | 18 |
| 2017/C 374/26 | Case C-494/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti | 18 |
| 2017/C 374/27 | Case C-509/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Christa Plessers v Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat | 19 |
| 2017/C 374/28 | Case C-510/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against ML | 19 |
| 2017/C 374/29 | Case C-528/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 September 2017 — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republic of Slovenia | 20 |
| 2017/C 374/30 | Case C-530/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2017 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15, M.Y. Azarov v Council of the European Union | 21 |
| 2017/C 374/31 | Case C-539/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission | 22 |
| 2017/C 374/32 | Case C-543/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium | 23 |
| 2017/C 374/33 | Case C-663/15: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol | 23 |
| 2017/C 374/34 | Case C-275/16: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA | 24 |
| 2017/C 374/35 | Case C-475/16: Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Protodikeio Rethymnis — Greece) — Criminal proceedings against K. | 24 |
| 2017/C 374/36 | Case C-255/17: Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA | 24 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 374/37 | Case T-564/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Fine imposed jointly and severally following a settlement procedure — Payment in instalments — Decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term AA credit rating — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality) | 25 |
| 2017/C 374/38 | Case T-350/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO — Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2017/C 374/39 | Case T-214/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zymara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zymara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2017/C 374/40 | Case T-238/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zimara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal — First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2017/C 374/41 | Case T-386/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO — Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95) | 28 |
| 2017/C 374/42 | Case T-586/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — NBC Fourth Realty Corp (NaraMaxx) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark NaraMaxx — Earlier national word mark MAXX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2017/C 374/43 | Case T-609/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark BASIC — Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 29 |
| 2017/C 374/44 | Case T-682/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Wanègue v Committee of the Regions (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Working conditions — Overtime — Chauffeur in grade AST 6 — Withdrawal of entitlement to the fixed allowance for overtime — Equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Errors in law — Distortion of the facts) | 30 |
| 2017/C 374/45 | Case T-83/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WIDIBA — Earlier national word mark DiBa — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Duty of care) | 30 |
| 2017/C 374/46 | Case T-84/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark widiba — Earlier national word mark DiBa — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Duty of care) | 31 |
| 2017/C 374/47 | Case T-87/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission (Financial assistance — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — ASSET Convention — Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit — Action for annulment — Legitimate expectations — Arbitration clause — Deadline for providing the audit report — Adversarial principle — Eligibility of costs — Contractual liability) | 31 |
| 2017/C 374/48 | Case T-261/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Direct support scheme for farmers — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Milk quota system — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 — Replacement of on-the-spot checks of agricultural holdings by administrative checks) | 32 |
| 2017/C 374/49 | Case T-454/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio) (European Union trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Arrigoni Valtaleggio — Earlier national figurative mark ARRIGONI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2017/C 374/50 | Case T-501/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — D'Agostino v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual staff — Article 3a of the CEOS — Contract not renewed — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Interest of the service) | 33 |
| 2017/C 374/51 | Case T-620/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — the Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic) (European trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic — Earlier national word mark idéa logistique — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 34 |
| 2017/C 374/52 | Case T-789/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — InvoiceAuction B2B v EUIPO (INVOICE AUCTION) (EU trade mark — Application for the figurative EU trade mark INVOICE AUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 35 |
| 2017/C 374/53 | Case T-510/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Commission and SRB | 35 |
| 2017/C 374/54 | Case T-514/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB | 36 |
| 2017/C 374/55 | Case T-515/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB | 37 |
| 2017/C 374/56 | Case T-518/17: Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Olarreaga Marques and Saralegui Reyzabal v SRB | 37 |
| 2017/C 374/57 | Case T-523/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB | 38 |
| 2017/C 374/58 | Case T-563/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB | 39 |
| 2017/C 374/59 | Case T-566/17: Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Molina García v SRB | 39 |
| 2017/C 374/60 | Case T-573/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Inversiones Flandes and Others v SRB | 40 |
| 2017/C 374/61 | Case T-581/17: Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines) | 40 |
| 2017/C 374/62 | Case T-582/17: Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council | 41 |
| 2017/C 374/63 | Case T-584/17: Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) | 42 |
| 2017/C 374/64 | Case T-592/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB | 42 |
| 2017/C 374/65 | Case T-601/17: Action brought on 31 August 2017 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube) | 43 |
| 2017/C 374/66 | Case T-605/17: Action brought on 1 September 2017 — CX v Commission | 44 |
| 2017/C 374/67 | Case T-611/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole) | 45 |
| 2017/C 374/68 | Case T-614/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA | 45 |
| 2017/C 374/69 | Case T-621/17: Action brought on 14 September 2017 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain/EFSA | 46 |
| 2017/C 374/70 | Case T-625/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB | 47 |
| 2017/C 374/71 | Case T-628/17: Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB | 48 |
| 2017/C 374/72 | Case T-630/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB | 48 |
| 2017/C 374/73 | Case T-644/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel) | 49 |
| 2017/C 374/74 | Case T-650/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission | 49 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 374/02

Case C-413/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Intel Corp. v European Commission, Association for Competitive Technology Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) (Appeal — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Loyalty rebates — Commission’s jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19)

2

2017/C 374/03

Case C-331/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of investigations — Directive 98/34/EC — Articles 8 and 9 — Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation — Refusal to grant access)

2

2017/C 374/04

Case C-465/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Scope — Article 2(4)(b) — Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction — Concept)

3

2017/C 374/05

Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Slovak Republic (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1601 — Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic — Emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into certain Member States — Relocation of those nationals to other Member States — Relocation quotas — Article 78(3) TFEU — Legal basis — Conditions under which applicable — Concept of legislative act — Article 289(3) TFEU — Whether conclusions adopted by the European Council are binding on the Council of the European Union — Article 15(1) TEU and Article 68 TFEU — Essential procedural requirements — Amendment of the European Commission’s proposal — Requirements for a further consultation of the European Parliament and a unanimous vote within the Council of the European Union — Article 293 TFEU — Principles of legal certainty and of proportionality)

4

2017/C 374/06

Case C-6/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Withholding tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5(1) — Exemption — Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of third States — Presumption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse)

5

2017/C 374/07

Case C-174/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — H. v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave — Clause 5(1) and (2) — Return from parental leave — Right to return to the same job or an equivalent or similar job — Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired to be maintained as they stand — Civil servant of a Land promoted to civil servant on probation in a managerial post — Rules of that Land providing for the ending of the probationary period by operation of law and with no possibility of extension on expiry of a two-year period, even in the case of absence as a result of parental leave — Incompatibility — Consequences)

5

2017/C 374/08

Case C-247/16: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Notion of contract of sale — Inapplicability of that directive — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

6

2017/C 374/09

Case C-248/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Concentrations between undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 3(1)(b) and (4) — Scope — Definition of concentration — Change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint — Creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity)

7

2017/C 374/10

Case C-506/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Directive 84/5/EEC — Directive 90/232/EEC — Driver responsible for the accident which caused the death of his spouse, a passenger in the vehicle — National legislation excluding compensation for material damage suffered by the driver responsible for the accident)

7

2017/C 374/11

Case C-559/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann v Brussels Airlines SA/NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7(1) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Flight consisting of several legs — Concept of distance to be taken into account)

8

2017/C 374/12

Case C-270/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Reasons for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — Trial resulting in the decision — Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance — Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case — Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings)

9

2017/C 374/13

Case C-271/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — Trial resulting in the decision — Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously — Decision handing down a cumulative sentence — Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person — Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal — Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings — Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard — Consequences for the executing judicial authority)

10

2017/C 374/14

Case C-473/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State where he risks being subjected to the death penalty — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection against extradition)

11

2017/C 374/15

Case C-87/17 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 July 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions — Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

11

2017/C 374/16

Joined Cases C-177/17 and C-178/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17) v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Lack of a sufficiently close connection — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

12

2017/C 374/17

Case C-187/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

12

2017/C 374/18

Case C-440/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

13

2017/C 374/19

Case C-454/17 PP: Appeal brought on 27 July 2017 by Vincent Piessevaux against the judgment delivered on 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16 Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union

14

2017/C 374/20

Case C-471/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

15

2017/C 374/21

Case C-484/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 10 August 2017 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

15

2017/C 374/22

Case C-486/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

16

2017/C 374/23

Case C-487/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Verlezza and Others

16

2017/C 374/24

Case C-488/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Carmelina Scaglione

17

2017/C 374/25

Case C-489/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against MAD Srl

18

2017/C 374/26

Case C-494/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

18

2017/C 374/27

Case C-509/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Christa Plessers v Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat

19

2017/C 374/28

Case C-510/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against ML

19

2017/C 374/29

Case C-528/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 September 2017 — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republic of Slovenia

20

2017/C 374/30

Case C-530/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2017 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15, M.Y. Azarov v Council of the European Union

21

2017/C 374/31

Case C-539/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission

22

2017/C 374/32

Case C-543/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

23

2017/C 374/33

Case C-663/15: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol

23

2017/C 374/34

Case C-275/16: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA

24

2017/C 374/35

Case C-475/16: Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Protodikeio Rethymnis — Greece) — Criminal proceedings against K.

24

2017/C 374/36

Case C-255/17: Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA

24

General Court

2017/C 374/37

Case T-564/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Fine imposed jointly and severally following a settlement procedure — Payment in instalments — Decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term AA credit rating — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

25

2017/C 374/38

Case T-350/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO — Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

26

2017/C 374/39

Case T-214/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zymara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zymara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

26

2017/C 374/40

Case T-238/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zimara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal — First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

27

2017/C 374/41

Case T-386/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO — Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

28

2017/C 374/42

Case T-586/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — NBC Fourth Realty Corp (NaraMaxx) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark NaraMaxx — Earlier national word mark MAXX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

28

2017/C 374/43

Case T-609/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark BASIC — Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

29

2017/C 374/44

Case T-682/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Wanègue v Committee of the Regions (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Working conditions — Overtime — Chauffeur in grade AST 6 — Withdrawal of entitlement to the fixed allowance for overtime — Equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Errors in law — Distortion of the facts)

30

2017/C 374/45

Case T-83/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WIDIBA — Earlier national word mark DiBa — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Duty of care)

30

2017/C 374/46

Case T-84/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark widiba — Earlier national word mark DiBa — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Duty of care)

31

2017/C 374/47

Case T-87/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission (Financial assistance — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — ASSET Convention — Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit — Action for annulment — Legitimate expectations — Arbitration clause — Deadline for providing the audit report — Adversarial principle — Eligibility of costs — Contractual liability)

31

2017/C 374/48

Case T-261/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Direct support scheme for farmers — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Milk quota system — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 — Replacement of on-the-spot checks of agricultural holdings by administrative checks)

32

2017/C 374/49

Case T-454/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio) (European Union trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Arrigoni Valtaleggio — Earlier national figurative mark ARRIGONI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

33

2017/C 374/50

Case T-501/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — D'Agostino v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual staff — Article 3a of the CEOS — Contract not renewed — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Interest of the service)

33

2017/C 374/51

Case T-620/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — the Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic) (European trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic — Earlier national word mark idéa logistique — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

34

2017/C 374/52

Case T-789/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — InvoiceAuction B2B v EUIPO (INVOICE AUCTION) (EU trade mark — Application for the figurative EU trade mark INVOICE AUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

35

2017/C 374/53

Case T-510/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Commission and SRB

35

2017/C 374/54

Case T-514/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB

36

2017/C 374/55

Case T-515/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB

37

2017/C 374/56

Case T-518/17: Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Olarreaga Marques and Saralegui Reyzabal v SRB

37

2017/C 374/57

Case T-523/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB

38

2017/C 374/58

Case T-563/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB

39

2017/C 374/59

Case T-566/17: Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Molina García v SRB

39

2017/C 374/60

Case T-573/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Inversiones Flandes and Others v SRB

40

2017/C 374/61

Case T-581/17: Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)

40

2017/C 374/62

Case T-582/17: Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council

41

2017/C 374/63

Case T-584/17: Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

42

2017/C 374/64

Case T-592/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB

42

2017/C 374/65

Case T-601/17: Action brought on 31 August 2017 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube)

43

2017/C 374/66

Case T-605/17: Action brought on 1 September 2017 — CX v Commission

44

2017/C 374/67

Case T-611/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)

45

2017/C 374/68

Case T-614/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA

45

2017/C 374/69

Case T-621/17: Action brought on 14 September 2017 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain/EFSA

46

2017/C 374/70

Case T-625/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB

47

2017/C 374/71

Case T-628/17: Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

48

2017/C 374/72

Case T-630/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB

48

2017/C 374/73

Case T-644/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)

49

2017/C 374/74

Case T-650/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission

49

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/1

---

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

(2017/C 374/01)

Last publication

OJ C 369, 30.10.2017

Past publications

OJ C 357, 23.10.2017

OJ C 347, 16.10.2017

OJ C 338, 9.10.2017

OJ C 330, 2.10.2017

OJ C 318, 25.9.2017

OJ C 309, 18.9.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Intel Corp. v European Commission, Association for Competitive Technology Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

(Case C-413/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Loyalty rebates - Commission’s jurisdiction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19))

(2017/C 374/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Intel Corp. (represented by: D. Beard QC, and by A. Parr and R. Mackenzie, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, acting as Agents), Association for Competitive Technology Inc. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat), Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 June 2014, Intel v Commission (T-286/09, EU:T:2014:547); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 June 2014, Intel v Commission (T-286/09, EU:T:2014:547);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 10.11.2014.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-331/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Protection of the purpose of investigations - Directive 98/34/EC - Articles 8 and 9 - Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation - Refusal to grant access))

(2017/C 374/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, G. de Bergues, B. Fodda and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Carl Schlyter (represented by: S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt and O.W. Brouwer, advocaat), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, A. Tokár and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, N. Otte Widgren, U. Persson, A. Falk, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic, Mr Carl Schlyter and the Commission to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic, Mr Carl Schlyter and the Commission to bear their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-465/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Scope - Article 2(4)(b) - Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction - Concept))

(2017/C 374/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the electricity used for the operation of turbo blowers intended to compress the air subsequently used in a blast furnace in the process of producing pig iron by chemical reduction of iron ore is not ‘electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Slovak Republic (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Decision (EU) 2015/1601 - Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic - Emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into certain Member States - Relocation of those nationals to other Member States - Relocation quotas - Article 78(3) TFEU - Legal basis - Conditions under which applicable - Concept of ‘legislative act’ - Article 289(3) TFEU - Whether conclusions adopted by the European Council are binding on the Council of the European Union - Article 15(1) TEU and Article 68 TFEU - Essential procedural requirements - Amendment of the European Commission’s proposal - Requirements for a further consultation of the European Parliament and a unanimous vote within the Council of the European Union - Article 293 TFEU - Principles of legal certainty and of proportionality))

(2017/C 374/05)

Language of the case: Slovak and Hungarian

Parties

Applicants: Slovak Republic (represented by: the Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky) (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Kamejsza, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, K. Pleśniak, N. Pethő and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J. Van Holm, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T Henze, R. Kanitz and J. Möller (C-647/15), acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Michelogiannaki and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F.-X. Bréchot and E. Armoet, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by L. D’Ascia, avvocato dello Stato), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: A. Germeaux, C. Schiltz and D. Holderer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, O. Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and K. Talabér-Ritz (C-647/15), J. Baquero Cruz and A. Tokár (C-643/15) and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Slovak Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-6/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Withholding tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5(1) - Exemption - Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of third States - Presumption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse))

(2017/C 374/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, first, and Article 49 TFEU, secondly, must be interpreted as precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects the grant of the tax advantage provided for by Article 5(1) of that directive — namely, the exemption from withholding tax of profits distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company, where that parent company is directly or indirectly controlled by one or more residents of third States — to the condition that that parent company establish that the principal purpose or one of the principal purposes of the chain of interests is not to take advantage of that exemption.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — H. v Land Berlin

(Case C-174/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - Clause 5(1) and (2) - Return from parental leave - Right to return to the same job or an equivalent or similar job - Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired to be maintained as they stand - Civil servant of a Land promoted to civil servant on probation in a managerial post - Rules of that Land providing for the ending of the probationary period by operation of law and with no possibility of extension on expiry of a two-year period, even in the case of absence as a result of parental leave - Incompatibility - Consequences))

(2017/C 374/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.

Defendant: Land Berlin

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 5(1) and (2) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which subject definitive promotion to a managerial post in the civil service to the condition that the candidate selected successfully carries out a prior two-year probationary period in that post, and by virtue of which, in a situation where such a candidate was on parental leave for most of that period and still is, that probationary period ends by operation of law after two years with no possibility of extending it and the person concerned is consequently, on return from parental leave, reinstated in the post, at a lower level both in status and in terms of remuneration, occupied before that probationary period. The infringements of that clause cannot be justified by the objective pursued by the probationary period, which is to enable the assessment of suitability for the managerial post to be assigned permanently. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 5(1) and (2) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which subject definitive promotion to a managerial post in the civil service to the condition that the candidate selected successfully carries out a prior two-year probationary period in that post, and by virtue of which, in a situation where such a candidate was on parental leave for most of that period and still is, that probationary period ends by operation of law after two years with no possibility of extending it and the person concerned is consequently, on return from parental leave, reinstated in the post, at a lower level both in status and in terms of remuneration, occupied before that probationary period. The infringements of that clause cannot be justified by the objective pursued by the probationary period, which is to enable the assessment of suitability for the managerial post to be assigned permanently.

| 2. | It is for the referring court, if necessary by disapplying the rules of national law at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain, as required by Clause 5(1) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Directive 2010/18, whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, it was not objectively possible for the Land concerned, in its capacity as an employer, to enable the person concerned to return to her post at the end of her parental leave and, if so, to ensure that she is assigned to an equivalent or similar post consistent with her employment contract or relationship, without that assignment of a post being made conditional upon holding a new selection procedure beforehand. It is also for that court to ensure that the person concerned may, at the end of parental leave, continue, in the post thus returned to or newly assigned, a probationary period under conditions that are in compliance with the requirements of Clause 5(2) of the revised Framework Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the referring court, if necessary by disapplying the rules of national law at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain, as required by Clause 5(1) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Directive 2010/18, whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, it was not objectively possible for the Land concerned, in its capacity as an employer, to enable the person concerned to return to her post at the end of her parental leave and, if so, to ensure that she is assigned to an equivalent or similar post consistent with her employment contract or relationship, without that assignment of a post being made conditional upon holding a new selection procedure beforehand. It is also for that court to ensure that the person concerned may, at the end of parental leave, continue, in the post thus returned to or newly assigned, a probationary period under conditions that are in compliance with the requirements of Clause 5(2) of the revised Framework Agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/6

---

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert

(Case C-247/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Notion of ‘contract of sale’ - Inapplicability of that directive - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2017/C 374/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heike Schottelius

Defendant: Falk Seifert

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Hannover (Hanover Regional Court, Germany) by decision of 22 April 2016.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt

(Case C-248/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Concentrations between undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Article 3(1)(b) and (4) - Scope - Definition of ‘concentration’ - Change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint - Creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity))

(2017/C 374/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG

Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is deemed to arise upon a change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint, only if the joint venture created by such a transaction performs on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State

(Case C-506/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Directive 84/5/EEC - Directive 90/232/EEC - Driver responsible for the accident which caused the death of his spouse, a passenger in the vehicle - National legislation excluding compensation for material damage suffered by the driver responsible for the accident))

(2017/C 374/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Joaquim Neto de Sousa

Defendant: Portuguese State

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of 11 May 2005, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which allow exclusion of the right of a driver of a motor vehicle responsible, by his own fault, for a traffic accident as a result of which his spouse, a passenger in that vehicle, has died, to receive compensation for the material harm which he has suffered as a result of that death.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann v Brussels Airlines SA/NV

(Case C-559/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7(1) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Flight consisting of several legs - Concept of ‘distance’ to be taken into account))

(2017/C 374/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann

Defendant: Brussels Airlines SA/NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates, in the case of air routes with connecting flights, only to the distance calculated between the first point of departure and the final destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas

(Case C-270/17 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance - Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case - Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings))

(2017/C 374/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Tadas Tupikas

Operative part of the judgment

Where the issuing Member State has provided for a criminal procedure involving several degrees of jurisdiction which may thus give rise to successive judicial decisions, at least one of which has been handed down in absentia, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as relating only to the instance at the end of which the decision is handed down which finally rules on the guilt of the person concerned and imposes a penalty on him, such as a custodial sentence, following a re-examination, in fact and in law, of the merits of the case.

An appeal proceeding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in principle falls within that concept. It is nonetheless up to the referring court to satisfy itself that it has the characteristics set out above.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

(Case C-271/17 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously - Decision handing down a cumulative sentence - Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person - Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal - Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings - Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard - Consequences for the executing judicial authority))

(2017/C 374/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as referring not only to the proceedings which gave rise to the decision on appeal, where that decision, after a fresh examination of the case on the merits, finally determined the guilt of the person concerned, but also to subsequent proceedings, such as those that led to the judgment handing down the cumulative sentence at issue here, at the end of which the decision that finally amended the level of the initial sentence was handed down, inasmuch as the authority which adopted the latter decision enjoyed a certain discretion in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as referring not only to the proceedings which gave rise to the decision on appeal, where that decision, after a fresh examination of the case on the merits, finally determined the guilt of the person concerned, but also to subsequent proceedings, such as those that led to the judgment handing down the cumulative sentence at issue here, at the end of which the decision that finally amended the level of the initial sentence was handed down, inasmuch as the authority which adopted the latter decision enjoyed a certain discretion in that regard.

| 2. | Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned has not appeared in person in the relevant proceeding or, as the case may be, in the relevant proceedings for the application of Article 4a(1) of that Framework Decision, as amended, and where neither the information contained in the standard form for a European arrest warrant annexed to that Framework Decision nor the information obtained pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision, as amended, provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of one of the situations referred to in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant.
  However, that Framework Decision, as amended, does not prevent that authority from taking account of all the circumstances characterising the case brought before it in order to ensure that the rights of the defence of the person concerned are respected during the relevant proceeding or proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned has not appeared in person in the relevant proceeding or, as the case may be, in the relevant proceedings for the application of Article 4a(1) of that Framework Decision, as amended, and where neither the information contained in the standard form for a European arrest warrant annexed to that Framework Decision nor the information obtained pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision, as amended, provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of one of the situations referred to in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant.

However, that Framework Decision, as amended, does not prevent that authority from taking account of all the circumstances characterising the case brought before it in order to ensure that the rights of the defence of the person concerned are respected during the relevant proceeding or proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/11

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr

(Case C-473/15) (1)

((Requests for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State where he risks being subjected to the death penalty - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Protection against extradition))

(2017/C 374/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR

Defendant: Eugen Adelsmayr

Operative part of the order

Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a request for extradition originating from a third country concerning a Union citizen who, in exercising his freedom of movement, leaves his Member State of origin in order to reside on the territory of another Member State, must be rejected by the latter Member State where that citizen runs a serious risk of being subjected to the death penalty in the event of extradition.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/11

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 July 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of European Union

(Case C-87/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions - Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature))

(2017/C 374/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of European Union

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/12

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17) v Ministero della Giustizia

(Joined Cases C-177/17 and C-178/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Lack of a sufficiently close connection - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2017/C 374/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17)

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte (Regional Administrative Court, Piedmont, Italy) by the decisions of 11 January 2017.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/12

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja

(Case C-187/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice))

(2017/C 374/17)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski Sud u Vukovaru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak

Defendant: EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru (Municipal Court of Vukovar, Croatia), by decision of 5 April 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-440/17)

(2017/C 374/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GS

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Questions referred

| I) | Does Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,
  in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and






  1. | there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

I)

Does Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,

in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and

1.

there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or

| 2. | the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, |
| --- | --- |

2.

the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,

whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from tax on income from capital without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

| II) | Should Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (1) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a rule which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,
  in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and






  1. | there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

II)

Should Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (1) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a rule which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,

in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and

1.

there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or

| 2. | the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose? |
| --- | --- |

2.

the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8), previously Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/14

---

Appeal brought on 27 July 2017 by Vincent Piessevaux against the judgment delivered on 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16 Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union

(Case C-454/17 PP)

(2017/C 374/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Vincent Piessevaux (represented by: L. Ponteville, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16;

| — | grant the appellant the form of order sought by it in the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the appellant the form of order sought by it in the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment, Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea of illegality of Staff Note 113/11 from the Appointing Authority of the Council, which introduces a derogation from the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Council Decision of 11 October 2011 adopting the general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials relating to the transfer of pension rights (‘the 2011 GIP’) — a derogation according to which the general implementing provisions adopted on 29 April 2004 (‘the 2004 GIP’) will continue to apply only in cases where the Appointing Authority has notified a proposal concerning a subsidy to the person concerned and where the latter has given his consent before the entry into force of the 2011 GIP. The reasoning of that rejection, set out in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those Staff Regulations.

The second ground of appeal alleges distortion of the first part of the third ground of annulment relied on by the appellant, breach of the principle of the authenticity of documents, failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The General Court erred in law:

| — | in paragraphs 73, 74, 80 and 81 of the judgment under appeal, by distorting the first part of the third ground of annulment and by breaching the authenticity of the appellant’s pleadings, by wrongly stating that the appellant had invoked a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

in paragraphs 73, 74, 80 and 81 of the judgment under appeal, by distorting the first part of the third ground of annulment and by breaching the authenticity of the appellant’s pleadings, by wrongly stating that the appellant had invoked a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

| — | in paragraphs 73 to 100 of the judgment under appeal, by failing to respond, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to the first part of the third ground of annulment, which is based on infringement of the principle equality of treatment and not on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

in paragraphs 73 to 100 of the judgment under appeal, by failing to respond, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to the first part of the third ground of annulment, which is based on infringement of the principle equality of treatment and not on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

| — | in paragraphs 82 to 100 of the judgment under appeal — in the event that it should nevertheless be held that paragraphs 82 to 100, or a part thereof or certain elements thereof, constitute a response to the first part of the third ground of annulment — by rejecting the plea of illegality of the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 9 of the 2011 GIP, relied on by the appellant and based on infringement of the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

in paragraphs 82 to 100 of the judgment under appeal — in the event that it should nevertheless be held that paragraphs 82 to 100, or a part thereof or certain elements thereof, constitute a response to the first part of the third ground of annulment — by rejecting the plea of illegality of the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 9 of the 2011 GIP, relied on by the appellant and based on infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-471/17)

(2017/C 374/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Question referred

Are fried noodles ‘dried’ pasta within the meaning of CN subheading 1902 3010? (1)

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 10 August 2017 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-484/17)

(2017/C 374/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

Should Article 15(1) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251[, p. 12]) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for an autonomous residence permit on the part of a foreign national who has resided lawfully for more than five years on the territory of a Member State for family-reunification purposes may be rejected because of non-compliance with conditions relating to integration laid down in national law?

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

(Case C-486/17)

(2017/C 374/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olympus Italia Srl

Defendant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Article 95(10) and Article 83(9) of Legislative Decree No 50/2016, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in the financial tender in a procedure for the award of public contracts inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned without the possibility of supplementing or amending its tendering documentation, even in the case where the obligation to list those costs separately was not set out on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question actually took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Verlezza and Others

(Case C-487/17)

(2017/C 374/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Alfonso Verlezza, Riccardo Traversa, Irene Cocco, Francesco Rando, Carmelina Scaglione, Francesco Rizzi, Antonio Giuliano, Enrico Giuliano, Refecta Srl, E. Giovi Srl, Vetreco Srl, SE.IN Srl

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

| 2. | Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

| 3. | Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

| 4. | Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

---

(1)  2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Carmelina Scaglione

(Case C-488/17)

(2017/C 374/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Carmelina Scaglione

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

| 2. | Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

| 3. | Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

| 4. | Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

---

(1)  2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against MAD Srl

(Case C-489/17)

(2017/C 374/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

MAD Srl

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

| 2. | Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

| 3. | Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

| 4. | Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

---

(1)  2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

(Case C-494/17)

(2017/C 374/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’Appello di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

Cross-appellant: Fabio Rossato

Respondent: Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

Question referred

Must clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 1(95), (131) and (132) of Law No 107 of 2015 of the Italian State, which provides for the conversion of temporary teachers’ fixed-term contracts into contracts of indefinite duration with respect to the future, without retroactive effect and without compensation for damage, as measures that are proportionate, sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that the measures laid down in the Framework Agreement are fully effective as regards breach of the agreement resulting from abusive repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts during the period prior to that in which the measures set out in the provisions in question are intended to have legal effect?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Christa Plessers v Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat

(Case C-509/17)

(2017/C 374/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christa Plessers

Defendants: Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is the right of option for the transferee under Article 61(4) (now Article 61(3)) of the Belgian Law of 31 January 2009 on the continuity of undertakings, as part of Chapter 4 of Title 4 of that law under which the ‘judicial reorganisation by transfer under judicial supervision’ is regulated, in so far as that ‘judicial reorganisation by transfer under judicial supervision’ is applied with a view to maintaining all or part of the transferor or its activities, consistent with Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular with Articles 3 and 5 of that directive?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against ML

(Case C-510/17)

(2017/C 374/28)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava II

Party to the main proceedings

ML

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (‘Directive 2012/13/EU’), Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU, the right to liberty and security under Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right of defence under Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for the national authorities not to provide the detainee, throughout the period of detention, with the information referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU (in particular the right to access to the materials of the case), fully or completely, and not to permit the detainee to challenge that failure to provide information in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU? If the reply to that question should be in the negative, does that infringement of the law of the European Union affect, at any stage in the criminal proceedings, the legality of the deprivation of personal liberty when the detainee has been placed in pre-trial detention, in addition to the continuation of such pre-trial detention, taking account of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? For the purposes of answering the foregoing questions, is it relevant that the detainee has been charged with a serious crime, for which national legislation provides for imprisonment for a minimum term of 15 years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (‘Directive 2012/13/EU’), Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU, the right to liberty and security under Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right of defence under Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for the national authorities not to provide the detainee, throughout the period of detention, with the information referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU (in particular the right to access to the materials of the case), fully or completely, and not to permit the detainee to challenge that failure to provide information in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU? If the reply to that question should be in the negative, does that infringement of the law of the European Union affect, at any stage in the criminal proceedings, the legality of the deprivation of personal liberty when the detainee has been placed in pre-trial detention, in addition to the continuation of such pre-trial detention, taking account of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? For the purposes of answering the foregoing questions, is it relevant that the detainee has been charged with a serious crime, for which national legislation provides for imprisonment for a minimum term of 15 years?

| 2. | Is a provision of national law that does not permit the court to impose a term of imprisonment of less than 15 years, without any possibility of account being taken of the principle that the penalty should be specific to the offender and to the offence — such as Section 172(3) of the Slovak Criminal Code, which punishes illicit drug trafficking — compatible with Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA (2) of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with Articles 82 and 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the right to a fair trial laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle of the proportionality of penalties under Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principles of proportionality, unity, effectiveness and the primacy of EU law? For the purposes of answering that question, is it relevant that the illicit drug trafficking was not committed by a criminal organisation within the meaning of EU law? Has the concept of criminal organisation for the purposes of Article 1 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (3) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime an autonomous meaning in the light of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the conditions for the uniform application of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a provision of national law that does not permit the court to impose a term of imprisonment of less than 15 years, without any possibility of account being taken of the principle that the penalty should be specific to the offender and to the offence — such as Section 172(3) of the Slovak Criminal Code, which punishes illicit drug trafficking — compatible with Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA (2) of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with Articles 82 and 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the right to a fair trial laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle of the proportionality of penalties under Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principles of proportionality, unity, effectiveness and the primacy of EU law? For the purposes of answering that question, is it relevant that the illicit drug trafficking was not committed by a criminal organisation within the meaning of EU law? Has the concept of criminal organisation for the purposes of Article 1 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (3) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime an autonomous meaning in the light of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the conditions for the uniform application of EU law?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8.

(3)  OJ 2008 L 300, p. 42.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 September 2017 — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-528/17)

(2017/C 374/29)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Milan Božičevič Ježovnik

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the importer (declarant), who at the time of the import requests exemption from payment of VAT (import in accordance with procedure 42), inasmuch as the goods are intended to be supplied in another Member State, liable for payment of the VAT (when it is subsequently found that the conditions necessary for exemption have not been satisfied) in the same way that he is liable for payment of the customs debt? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the importer (declarant), who at the time of the import requests exemption from payment of VAT (import in accordance with procedure 42), inasmuch as the goods are intended to be supplied in another Member State, liable for payment of the VAT (when it is subsequently found that the conditions necessary for exemption have not been satisfied) in the same way that he is liable for payment of the customs debt?

| 2. | If the answer is in the negative, is the liability of the importer (declarant) equal to that of the taxable person who makes the intra-Community supply of exempt goods, for the purposes of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the negative, is the liability of the importer (declarant) equal to that of the taxable person who makes the intra-Community supply of exempt goods, for the purposes of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?

| 3. | In the latter case, must the subjective element showing that the importer (declarant) intended to abuse the VAT scheme be assessed differently from the case of the intra-Community supply of goods referred to in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? Must that assessment be more concessive, in the light of the fact that in procedure 42 exemption from payment of VAT must be authorised in advance by the customs authority? Or must it be more restrictive, inasmuch as the transactions concerned are connected with the first entry into the European Union internal market of goods originating from third countries? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the latter case, must the subjective element showing that the importer (declarant) intended to abuse the VAT scheme be assessed differently from the case of the intra-Community supply of goods referred to in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? Must that assessment be more concessive, in the light of the fact that in procedure 42 exemption from payment of VAT must be authorised in advance by the customs authority? Or must it be more restrictive, inasmuch as the transactions concerned are connected with the first entry into the European Union internal market of goods originating from third countries?

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/21

---

Appeal brought on 7 September 2017 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15, M.Y. Azarov v Council of the European Union

(Case C-530/17 P)

(2017/C 374/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15;

| 2. | give final judgment itself in the case and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (1) of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (2) of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

2.

give final judgment itself in the case and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (1) of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (2) of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

| 3. | in the alternative to the second head of claim above, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in line with the legal assessment contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice, and reserve the decision on costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

in the alternative to the second head of claim above, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in line with the legal assessment contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice, and reserve the decision on costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

| (1) | The General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in finding that the Council had not erred in law in its reasons for the restrictive measures. The Council did not set out the reasons in a sufficiently specific and concrete manner. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in finding that the Council had not erred in law in its reasons for the restrictive measures. The Council did not set out the reasons in a sufficiently specific and concrete manner.

| (2) | The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not infringed fundamental rights. The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the interference with property rights and the freedom to run a business. In particular, it erred in law in finding that the measures were appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, the General Court committed procedural errors and infringed procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not infringed fundamental rights. The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the interference with property rights and the freedom to run a business. In particular, it erred in law in finding that the measures were appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, the General Court committed procedural errors and infringed procedural rights.

| (3) | The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not misused its powers. First, the General Court failed to carry out a specific check on the appellant. Second, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the lack of specific evidence was irrelevant. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not misused its powers. First, the General Court failed to carry out a specific check on the appellant. Second, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the lack of specific evidence was irrelevant.

| (4) | The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not infringed the right to good administration. First, the findings of the General Court on the Council’s obligation to maintain impartiality are vitiated by errors of law. Second, the General Court failed to have regard for the scope of the obligation to make a careful determination of the facts. In this context, an infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights is also evident.
  The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not committed a ‘manifest error of assessment’. First, the General Court failed to meet its obligation to carry out a review in relation to the contested legal acts in that it did not review the procedure which had led to the adoption of the contested legal acts. The General Court erred in law in finding that the Council could rely solely on a letter from the Ukraine. The General Court thereby disregarded the obligation to make additional enquiries. Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard for the scope of the most recent case-law of the Court of Justice on restrictive measures. In addition, the General Court reasoned to a large extent in a purely political manner and demonstrates a failure to appreciate the importance of fundamental rights in a third country. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not infringed the right to good administration. First, the findings of the General Court on the Council’s obligation to maintain impartiality are vitiated by errors of law. Second, the General Court failed to have regard for the scope of the obligation to make a careful determination of the facts. In this context, an infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights is also evident.

The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not committed a ‘manifest error of assessment’. First, the General Court failed to meet its obligation to carry out a review in relation to the contested legal acts in that it did not review the procedure which had led to the adoption of the contested legal acts. The General Court erred in law in finding that the Council could rely solely on a letter from the Ukraine. The General Court thereby disregarded the obligation to make additional enquiries. Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard for the scope of the most recent case-law of the Court of Justice on restrictive measures. In addition, the General Court reasoned to a large extent in a purely political manner and demonstrates a failure to appreciate the importance of fundamental rights in a third country.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25.

(2)  OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/22

---

Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission

(Case C-539/17 P)

(2017/C 374/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission;

| — | uphold the company’s action of 6 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the company’s action of 6 February 2015;

| — | dismiss the Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the Commission’s counterclaim;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the appellant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| (1) | Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement at issue — Infringement of the provisions concerning subcontracting under the financial regulation in force.






  — | The General Court assessed Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code incorrectly, as regards application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement at issue — Infringement of the provisions concerning subcontracting under the financial regulation in force.

—

The General Court assessed Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code incorrectly, as regards application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement.

| — | The General Court erred as to the interpretation of the provisions concerning subcontracting, as laid down in Article 130 et seq. of Regulation (EU) No 2342/2002 and in contractual clauses I.II.2.4 and II.13.1 of the Framework Contract signed under number FP7/2009/1. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred as to the interpretation of the provisions concerning subcontracting, as laid down in Article 130 et seq. of Regulation (EU) No 2342/2002 and in contractual clauses I.II.2.4 and II.13.1 of the Framework Contract signed under number FP7/2009/1.

| (2) | Incorrect interpretation and application of a contractual clause and manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence.






  — | The General Court erred as to the interpretation of clause II.22., Financial audits and controls, of Annex II to the agreement that was signed, mistakenly rejecting claims in that regard by the applicant/appellant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

Incorrect interpretation and application of a contractual clause and manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence.

—

The General Court erred as to the interpretation of clause II.22., Financial audits and controls, of Annex II to the agreement that was signed, mistakenly rejecting claims in that regard by the applicant/appellant.

| (3) | Manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence and defective reasoning.






  — | The General Court erred as it manifestly distorted key evidence that was relied on by the appellant and admitted by the respondent. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(3)

Manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence and defective reasoning.

—

The General Court erred as it manifestly distorted key evidence that was relied on by the appellant and admitted by the respondent.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/23

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-543/17)

(2017/C 374/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, L. Nicolae and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing, by 1 January 2016 at the latest, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing, by 1 January 2016 at the latest, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that directive;

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a fine in the sum of EUR 54 639,36 per diem from the date of delivery of the judgment in this action for failure to fulfil the obligation of communicating the measures transposing Directive 2014/61; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a fine in the sum of EUR 54 639,36 per diem from the date of delivery of the judgment in this action for failure to fulfil the obligation of communicating the measures transposing Directive 2014/61;

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

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By virtue of Article 13 of Directive 2014/61, the Member States were required to adopt the national transposing measures by 1 January 2016 at the latest. The Commission is of the view that the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

In its action, the Commission proposes that a daily fine of EUR 54 639,36 be imposed on the Kingdom of Belgium.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/23

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol

(Case C-663/15) (1)

(2017/C 374/33)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/24

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-275/16) (1)

(2017/C 374/34)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Protodikeio Rethymnis — Greece) — Criminal proceedings against K.

(Case C-475/16) (1)

(2017/C 374/35)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 22.11.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA

(Case C-255/17) (1)

(2017/C 374/36)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

---

General Court

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission

(Case T-564/10 RENV) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Fine imposed jointly and severally following a settlement procedure - Payment in instalments - Decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))

(2017/C 374/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA (Lordelo, Portugal) and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Calheiros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of the decision allegedly set out in the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 8 October 2010 concerning payment of the fines imposed on the applicants for infringement of competition rules by Commission Decision C(2010) 5004 final of 20 July 2010 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.886 — Animal feed phosphates), in so far as that letter requires the provision of a guarantee from a bank that has received a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating as a condition for granting the applicants’ request for additional time to pay the fine jointly and severally imposed on them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rejects the plea of inadmissibility; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and the proceedings before the General Court prior to the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and the proceedings before the General Court prior to the appeal;

| 4. | Orders Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, José de Mello —Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and the Commission each to bear their own respective costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, José de Mello —Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and the Commission each to bear their own respective costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case T-350/13) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO - Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Fernández Castellanos, M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo and subsequently by M. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Jordi Nogues.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL;

| 3. | Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zymara)

(Case T-214/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zymara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2015 (Case R 550/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara)

(Case T-238/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zimara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal - First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

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 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case T-386/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO - Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 374/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2015 (Case R 2570/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Jordi Nogues.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 April 2013 (R 2570/2013-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 April 2013 (R 2570/2013-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL;

| 3. | Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — NBC Fourth Realty Corp (NaraMaxx)

(Case T-586/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark NaraMaxx - Earlier national word mark MAXX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Osmangazi-Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and L. Monzón de la Flor, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (North Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented: initially by D. Stone and A. Dykes, and subsequently by A. Smith, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 1073/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between NBC Fourth Realty and Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-609/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BASIC - Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, and subsequently by J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg and H. Bickel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Basic Lebensmittelhandel and Repsol, SA.

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 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Repsol YPF, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Repsol YPF, SA;

| 3. | Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Wanègue v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-682/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Working conditions - Overtime - Chauffeur in grade AST 6 - Withdrawal of entitlement to the fixed allowance for overtime - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Errors in law - Distortion of the facts))

(2017/C 374/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Patrick Wanègue (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Committee of the Regions (represented by: J. C. Cañoto Argüelles and S. Bachotet, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2015, Wanègue v Committee of the Regions (F 21/15, EU:F:2015:102), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Mr Patrick Wanègue to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Committee of the Regions in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Patrick Wanègue to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Committee of the Regions in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)

(Case T-83/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WIDIBA - Earlier national word mark DiBa - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Request for restitutio in integrum - Duty of care))

(2017/C 374/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy) and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and J. García Murillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Gerling and M. Wolpert-Witzel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Joined Cases R 112/2015-2 and R 190/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between ING-DIBa and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)

(Case T-84/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark widiba - Earlier national word mark DiBa - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Request for restitutio in integrum - Duty of care))

(2017/C 374/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy) and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and J. García Murillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Gerling and M. Wolpert-Witzel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Joined Cases R 113/2015-2 and R 174/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between ING-DIBa and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission

(Case T-87/16) (1)

((Financial assistance - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - ASSET Convention - Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit - Action for annulment - Legitimate expectations - Arbitration clause - Deadline for providing the audit report - Adversarial principle - Eligibility of costs - Contractual liability))

(2017/C 374/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, Agents)

Re:

On the one hand, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision of 17 December 2015 to proceed to recovery by offsetting, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit, certain sums advanced to the applicant under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project, concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, and, on the other hand, application based on Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that that debt does not exist, that the expenditure incurred under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project is eligible and to order the Commission to confirm that the funding granted is lawful, to order the Commission to pay a sum under Grant Agreement No 607049 in respect of the Eksistenz project and to pay contractual compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurofast SARL to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 78 380,28, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contribution from which it benefitted under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the project ‘Aeronautic Study on Seamless Transport’, plus late-payment interest at a rate of 3,55 % from 13 January 2015, after deduction of the offset amount, namely EUR 69 923,68 as at 17 December 2015. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurofast SARL to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 78 380,28, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contribution from which it benefitted under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the project ‘Aeronautic Study on Seamless Transport’, plus late-payment interest at a rate of 3,55 % from 13 January 2015, after deduction of the offset amount, namely EUR 69 923,68 as at 17 December 2015.

| 3. | Orders Eurofast to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those related to the interlocutory procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eurofast to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those related to the interlocutory procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-261/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Direct support scheme for farmers - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Milk quota system - Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 - Replacement of on-the-spot checks of agricultural holdings by administrative checks))

(2017/C 374/48)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Lewis, G. Braga da Cruz and J. Guillem Carrau, then A. Lewis and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), including that carried out by the Portuguese Republic in the context of ‘[o]ther Direct Aid — [a]rticle 68 — 72 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009’ for the financial years 2011 to 2013 of a total amount of EUR 385 762,22.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

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

2)

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

(Case T-454/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Arrigoni Valtaleggio - Earlier national figurative mark ARRIGONI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Arrigoni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Di Gravio, 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: Arrigoni Battista ApA (Bergamo, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, M. Balestriero and K. Muraro, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 2922/2014 1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Arrigoni and Arrigoni Formaggi SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Arrigoni SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Arrigoni SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — D'Agostino v Commission

(Case T-501/16 RENV) (1)

((Civil Service - Contractual staff - Article 3a of the CEOS - Contract not renewed - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Interest of the service))

(2017/C 374/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luigi D'Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU, seeking, firstly, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contractual staff and, secondly, compensation for the loss which he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Luigi D’Agostino to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of Case F-93/12 and to bear his own costs of Case T-670/13 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Luigi D’Agostino to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of Case F-93/12 and to bear his own costs of Case T-670/13 P;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs of Case T-670/13 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs of Case T-670/13 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012 (Case originally registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-93/12).

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — the Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)

(Case T-620/16) (1)

((European trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic - Earlier national word mark idéa logistique - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach (Uden, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2016 (Case R 1435/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Logistical Approach BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Logistical Approach BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — InvoiceAuction B2B v EUIPO (INVOICE AUCTION)

(Case T-789/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the figurative EU trade mark INVOICE AUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: InvoiceAuction B2B GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2201/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign INVOICE AUCTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders InvoiceAuction B2B GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders InvoiceAuction B2B GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/35

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-510/17)

(2017/C 374/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 41 others (represented by: P. Saini, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and R. Boynton, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul, first, the decision of the Single Resolution Board adopted in its Executive Session of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 (1), and, further, declare illegal Articles 18 and 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decision of the Single Resolution Board adopted in its Executive Session of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 (1), and, further, declare illegal Articles 18 and 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2);

| — | order the defendants to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of the SRM Regulation is unlawful, in that the process stipulated therein fails to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to be heard and allows for no judicial oversight, in violation of (a) Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (EU Charter) and (b) the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of the SRM Regulation is unlawful, in that the process stipulated therein fails to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to be heard and allows for no judicial oversight, in violation of (a) Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (EU Charter) and (b) the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, irrespective of whether Article 18 of the SRM Regulation is unlawful, the contested SRB Decision and the contested Commission Decision infringed Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the EU Charter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, irrespective of whether Article 18 of the SRM Regulation is unlawful, the contested SRB Decision and the contested Commission Decision infringed Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the EU Charter.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ right to property. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ right to property.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 20 of the SRM Regulation by failing to undertake a proper and independent valuation prior to taking the contested SRM Decision and the contested Commission Decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 20 of the SRM Regulation by failing to undertake a proper and independent valuation prior to taking the contested SRM Decision and the contested Commission Decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 18(1) of the SRM Regulation in determining that the conditions precedent set out under Articles 18(1)(a) and (b) were satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 18(1) of the SRM Regulation in determining that the conditions precedent set out under Articles 18(1)(a) and (b) were satisfied.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 21(1) of the SRM Regulation in determining that the conditions for the exercise of the power to write down or convert relevant capital instruments were satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 21(1) of the SRM Regulation in determining that the conditions for the exercise of the power to write down or convert relevant capital instruments were satisfied.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission breached an essential procedural requirement in failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested SRB Decision and the contested Commission Decision. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission breached an essential procedural requirement in failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested SRB Decision and the contested Commission Decision.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that in selecting the sale of business tool, the SRB and Commission have failed to comply with (a) the principle of proportionality; and (b) the legitimate expectations of the applicants, by departing from the resolution plan without justification. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that in selecting the sale of business tool, the SRB and Commission have failed to comply with (a) the principle of proportionality; and (b) the legitimate expectations of the applicants, by departing from the resolution plan without justification.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 and 22 of the SRM Regulation breached the principles relating to the delegation of powers. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 and 22 of the SRM Regulation breached the principles relating to the delegation of powers.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. (notified under document C(2017) 4038) (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

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

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/36

---

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB

(Case T-514/17)

(2017/C 374/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Antonia Elisenda Garriga Sadurní (Barcelona, Spain) and Josep María Martí Fonts (Barcelona) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

| — | Order the payment of compensation to the applicants in the amount of EUR 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation to the applicants in the amount of EUR 500 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/37

---

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB

(Case T-515/17)

(2017/C 374/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Valverde e Hijos, SA (Montcada Reixac, Spain) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

| — | Order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 508 505,50. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 508 505,50.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/37

---

Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Olarreaga Marques and Saralegui Reyzabal v SRB

(Case T-518/17)

(2017/C 374/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Gorka Olarreaga Marques (Madrid, Spain) and María-Aránzazu Saralegui Reyzabal (Madrid) (represented by: R. Jiménez Velasco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board agreed of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board agreed of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/38

---

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-523/17)

(2017/C 374/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Eleveté Invest Group S.L. (Madrid, Spain) and 19 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Román, F. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017;

| — | Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability;

| — | Declare the invalidity of the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the invalidity of the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants;

| — | Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/39

---

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB

(Case T-563/17)

(2017/C 374/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gayalex Proyectos, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Betancor Álamo and F. Cabrera Molina, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/39

---

Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Molina García v SRB

(Case T-566/17)

(2017/C 374/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jerónimo Molina García (Puente Genil, Spain) (represented by: A. Velasco Albalá, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Accept the consequences of the decision of the Single Resolution Board which was adopted erroneously, either because of lack of transparency or because of failure to take prior preventive measures which would have avoided the loss of shareholders’ capital through its depreciation and, consequently, order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of the loss resulting from the erroneous procedure and decision, namely EUR 7 805,29. |
| --- | --- |

—

Accept the consequences of the decision of the Single Resolution Board which was adopted erroneously, either because of lack of transparency or because of failure to take prior preventive measures which would have avoided the loss of shareholders’ capital through its depreciation and, consequently, order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of the loss resulting from the erroneous procedure and decision, namely EUR 7 805,29.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/40

---

Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Inversiones Flandes and Others v SRB

(Case T-573/17)

(2017/C 374/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Inversiones Flandes SL (Madrid, Spain), New Winds Group, SL (Madrid, Spain), Sarey Investments, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Jiménez Velasco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the Single Resolution Board in the light of the recitals, articles and principles set out and order the adoption of a new decision which reflects, with full transparency and certainty, the actual financial situation, in commercial terms, of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, on that basis, order that appropriate measures be taken; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the Single Resolution Board in the light of the recitals, articles and principles set out and order the adoption of a new decision which reflects, with full transparency and certainty, the actual financial situation, in commercial terms, of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, on that basis, order that appropriate measures be taken;

| — | Expressly order SRB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Expressly order SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/40

---

Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)

(Case T-581/17)

(2017/C 374/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Asics Corporation (Kobe, Japan) (represented by: M. Polo Carreño, M. Granado Carpenter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Van Lieshout textiel Agenturen BV (Berkel-Enschot, The Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of four crossing lines) — Application for registration No 11 952 678

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 2129/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Breach of the duty of the Board to revise the legality of the first instance decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the duty of the Board to revise the legality of the first instance decision;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/41

---

Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council

(Case T-582/17)

(2017/C 374/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) and 7 other applicants (represented by: P. Chansay-Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the restrictive measures at issue to be null and void, namely,






  — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare the restrictive measures at issue to be null and void, namely,

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vaguely reasoned and significantly vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. According to the applicants, the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against them are unfounded in both fact and law. Moreover, the Council committed several irregularities, each capable of justifying the annulment of the contested acts.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/42

---

Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

(Case T-584/17)

(2017/C 374/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue, containing the word elements ‘Primart Marek Łukasiewicz’ — Application for registration No 13 682 299

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 in Case R 1933/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/42

---

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB

(Case T-592/17)

(2017/C 374/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Juan Carlos Serra Noguera (Sant Jordi de ses Salines, Spain) and 56 other applicants (represented by: R. García-Bragado Acín, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | acknowledge the filing of this action and take note of this APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based; |
| --- | --- |

—

acknowledge the filing of this action and take note of this APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based;

| — | Given that it is practically impossible to reverse the implementation of that decision, declare that SRB is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the applicants, which corresponds to the amount of their investment or the amount determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Given that it is practically impossible to reverse the implementation of that decision, declare that SRB is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the applicants, which corresponds to the amount of their investment or the amount determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/43

---

Action brought on 31 August 2017 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube)

(Case T-601/17)

(2017/C 374/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rubik’s Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a cube) — EU trade mark No 162 784

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2017 in Case R 452/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/44

---

Action brought on 1 September 2017 — CX v Commission

(Case T-605/17)

(2017/C 374/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

declare his action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently,






  — | annul the ‘debit note’, regarded by the Commission as a decision adversely affecting the applicant (‘the second contested decision’), dated 22 December 2016 (Annex A.1), under the reference Ares(2016)7145655, in so far as it requires the applicant to recover the ‘salaries paid in 2015 and 2016’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul the ‘debit note’, regarded by the Commission as a decision adversely affecting the applicant (‘the second contested decision’), dated 22 December 2016 (Annex A.1), under the reference Ares(2016)7145655, in so far as it requires the applicant to recover the ‘salaries paid in 2015 and 2016’;

| — | annul the ‘preliminary information letter’ (‘the first contested decision’), of 28 October 2016 (Annex A.2), under the reference Ares(2016)6178919, which ostensibly constitutes its legal basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ‘preliminary information letter’ (‘the first contested decision’), of 28 October 2016 (Annex A.2), under the reference Ares(2016)6178919, which ostensibly constitutes its legal basis;

| — | annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of 23 May 2017 (Annex A.5), under the reference Ares(2017)2620957, notified on the same day (Annex A.6), by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint, which he had lodged on 27 January 2017, under the reference R/59/17 (Annex A.4), against the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of 23 May 2017 (Annex A.5), under the reference Ares(2017)2620957, notified on the same day (Annex A.6), by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint, which he had lodged on 27 January 2017, under the reference R/59/17 (Annex A.4), against the contested decisions;

| — | order the defendant to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a formal defect and a procedural defect, and that the appointing authority adopted the contested decisions on an erroneous legal basis, which justifies their annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a formal defect and a procedural defect, and that the appointing authority adopted the contested decisions on an erroneous legal basis, which justifies their annulment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, upon which the appointing authority based itself, is manifestly inapplicable in the present case. In the applicant’s view, the recovery of undue payments is subject to two cumulative conditions: first, the payment which the administration seeks to recover must have been irregular, and second, the member of staff must have been aware of that irregularity or the irregularity must have been so obvious that the member of staff could not have failed to be aware of it, which is clearly not the case here. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, upon which the appointing authority based itself, is manifestly inapplicable in the present case. In the applicant’s view, the recovery of undue payments is subject to two cumulative conditions: first, the payment which the administration seeks to recover must have been irregular, and second, the member of staff must have been aware of that irregularity or the irregularity must have been so obvious that the member of staff could not have failed to be aware of it, which is clearly not the case here.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the formal and procedural rules by reason of the adoption of a decision devoid of any legal basis, in so far as it is maintained in that decision a posteriori that the measure justifying it is not, or is no longer, a measure adversely affecting the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the formal and procedural rules by reason of the adoption of a decision devoid of any legal basis, in so far as it is maintained in that decision a posteriori that the measure justifying it is not, or is no longer, a measure adversely affecting the applicant.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/45

---

Action brought on 7 September 2017 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)

(Case T-611/17)

(2017/C 374/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: All Star CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour Hypermarchés (Evry, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a shoe sole) — EU trade mark No 7 497 373

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 952/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 62, 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 62, 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 75 and 78 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 75 and 78 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 63 and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 63 and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Articles 52(1) and 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 52(1) and 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 52(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 52(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/45

---

Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA

(Case T-614/17)

(2017/C 374/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the decision of 14 November 2016 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 14 November 2016 dismissing the applicant;

| — | annul the decision of the Authority entitled to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 2 June 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 February 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Authority entitled to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 2 June 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 February 2017;

| — | award the applicant the amount of EUR 15 000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the amount of EUR 15 000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

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 infringement of Article 84 CEAA, procedural irregularities committed by the defendant Agency, infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care and infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant and, in particular, of his right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84 CEAA, procedural irregularities committed by the defendant Agency, infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care and infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant and, in particular, of his right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the absence of normal probationary conditions and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the absence of normal probationary conditions and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the absence of clearly defined objectives, infringement of Article 80 CEAA and failure to observe the principle of correspondence between Function Group IV and the tasks assigned to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the absence of clearly defined objectives, infringement of Article 80 CEAA and failure to observe the principle of correspondence between Function Group IV and the tasks assigned to the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the probationary period report was based on manifestly erroneous grounds. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the probationary period report was based on manifestly erroneous grounds.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration and a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration and a misuse of power.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/46

---

Action brought on 14 September 2017 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain/EFSA

(Case T-621/17)

(2017/C 374/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Taminco BVBA (Gent, Belgium), Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Food Safety Authority of 18 July 2017, notified to the applicants on 20 July 2017, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Thiram as an active substance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Food Safety Authority of 18 July 2017, notified to the applicants on 20 July 2017, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Thiram as an active substance;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the absence of a legal basis for publication.






  — | The applicants maintain that publication would be ultra vires given that there is no legal basis upon which the defendant could rely to justify publication, be it under Regulation 1107/2009, Regulation 178/2002 or Commission Implementing Regulation No 844/2012. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the absence of a legal basis for publication.

—

The applicants maintain that publication would be ultra vires given that there is no legal basis upon which the defendant could rely to justify publication, be it under Regulation 1107/2009, Regulation 178/2002 or Commission Implementing Regulation No 844/2012.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires in its proposed classification of Thiram since the European Chemicals Agency is the only authority legally responsible for classification or reclassification of substances, as set out in Regulation 1272/2008, and the defendant lacks powers in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires in its proposed classification of Thiram since the European Chemicals Agency is the only authority legally responsible for classification or reclassification of substances, as set out in Regulation 1272/2008, and the defendant lacks powers in this regard.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached fundamental rights of the defence by failing to guarantee the applicants a full, proper and effective opportunity to submit comments on a proposed reclassification of its substance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached fundamental rights of the defence by failing to guarantee the applicants a full, proper and effective opportunity to submit comments on a proposed reclassification of its substance.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 by deciding to publish the information which the applicants sought to have sanitized, which might undermine their commercial interests. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 by deciding to publish the information which the applicants sought to have sanitized, which might undermine their commercial interests.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/47

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB

(Case T-625/17)

(2017/C 374/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Antonio Vallina Fonseca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

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

—

Order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/48

---

Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

(Case T-628/17)

(2017/C 374/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Calvo Costa, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme the Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/48

---

Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB

(Case T-630/17)

(2017/C 374/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Top Cable, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/49

---

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)

(Case T-644/17)

(2017/C 374/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DNV GL AS (Høvik, Norway) (represented by: J. Albers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sustainablel’ — Application for registration No 15 372 832

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | register the European Union trade mark application No 15 372 832 ‘Sustainablel’ for all applied for goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

register the European Union trade mark application No 15 372 832 ‘Sustainablel’ for all applied for goods and services;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/49

---

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission

(Case T-650/17)

(2017/C 374/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactures by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd.; and; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactures by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd.; and;

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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 a violation of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation (1) by the reliance on (i) low volume sales outside the ordinary course of trade and (ii) unreliable cost data to arbitrarily exclude sales
  The applicant submits that the normal value determination made by the Commission violates Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation for two reasons.






  — | First, so the applicant states, the normal value determination is distorted by the inclusion of sales of product control numbers (‘PCN’s) that were only sold in very small volumes by the analogue country producer. The applicant claims that it demonstrated that the prices of such low volume sales were not reliable and resulted in an unreasonable determination of the normal value. Moreover, so the applicant claims, the low volume sales do not reflect normal behavior on the part of purchasers and result from normal patterns of price formation, and are accordingly not in the ordinary course of trade, thus not permitting a proper comparison. According to the applicant, the Commission stressed that it carried out an ordinary course of trade test, but failed to address the foregoing. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation (1) by the reliance on (i) low volume sales outside the ordinary course of trade and (ii) unreliable cost data to arbitrarily exclude sales

The applicant submits that the normal value determination made by the Commission violates Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation for two reasons.

—

First, so the applicant states, the normal value determination is distorted by the inclusion of sales of product control numbers (‘PCN’s) that were only sold in very small volumes by the analogue country producer. The applicant claims that it demonstrated that the prices of such low volume sales were not reliable and resulted in an unreasonable determination of the normal value. Moreover, so the applicant claims, the low volume sales do not reflect normal behavior on the part of purchasers and result from normal patterns of price formation, and are accordingly not in the ordinary course of trade, thus not permitting a proper comparison. According to the applicant, the Commission stressed that it carried out an ordinary course of trade test, but failed to address the foregoing.

| — | Second, according to the applicant, the Commission did not obtain reliable cost data by PCN from the analogue country producer. The applicant claims that it therefore developed a methodology to calculate such PCN-specific cost data, but that in reality, this methodology was a mere presumption that all transactions that were priced below 92,14 % of the average price of the PCN were not profitable, rather than a PCN-by-PCN profitability check. The applicant puts forward that such a general assumption is entirely unreasonable, and leads to an arbitrary exclusion of sales transactions and an unjustified increase of the normal value. The applicant comes to the conclusion that the reliance on such methodology and unreliable data to arbitrarily exclude lower priced sales from the normal value determination to its detriment violates Article 2(7)(a). |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, according to the applicant, the Commission did not obtain reliable cost data by PCN from the analogue country producer. The applicant claims that it therefore developed a methodology to calculate such PCN-specific cost data, but that in reality, this methodology was a mere presumption that all transactions that were priced below 92,14 % of the average price of the PCN were not profitable, rather than a PCN-by-PCN profitability check. The applicant puts forward that such a general assumption is entirely unreasonable, and leads to an arbitrary exclusion of sales transactions and an unjustified increase of the normal value. The applicant comes to the conclusion that the reliance on such methodology and unreliable data to arbitrarily exclude lower priced sales from the normal value determination to its detriment violates Article 2(7)(a).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation and Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of good administration by rejecting the adjustments for level of trade, credit terms, packing cost and differences in raw materials and productivity and by imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.






  — | According to the applicant, all of its sales were made to end-users whereas the analogue country producer sold both to end-users and to traders. The applicant puts forward that it submitted abundant evidence showing that there was a consistent difference in pricing and that despite this, the Commission rejected the requested adjustment for the differences in level of trade. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation and Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of good administration by rejecting the adjustments for level of trade, credit terms, packing cost and differences in raw materials and productivity and by imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.

—

According to the applicant, all of its sales were made to end-users whereas the analogue country producer sold both to end-users and to traders. The applicant puts forward that it submitted abundant evidence showing that there was a consistent difference in pricing and that despite this, the Commission rejected the requested adjustment for the differences in level of trade.

| — | The applicant argues that the Commission further rejected to revise the calculation of the adjustment for packing costs, even though the applicant submitted evidence that the value of the adjustment was erroneous as a result of the use of a wrong allocation key. According to the applicant, the Commission thus violated its obligations by allocating the total packing cost over the total turnover rather than over the turnover of the products produced by the analogue country producer itself. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant argues that the Commission further rejected to revise the calculation of the adjustment for packing costs, even though the applicant submitted evidence that the value of the adjustment was erroneous as a result of the use of a wrong allocation key. According to the applicant, the Commission thus violated its obligations by allocating the total packing cost over the total turnover rather than over the turnover of the products produced by the analogue country producer itself.

| — | The applicant further submits that the Commission also rejected to make an adjustment for credit costs to the bulk of sales by the analogue country producer. According to the applicant, the applicant demonstrated that the evidence on record contradicted the Commission’s position that had initially led it to not make such adjustment, and rather than drawing the right conclusions about the need to make adjustments for credit terms, the Commission made an adjustment for a single specific customer in violation of its obligations. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further submits that the Commission also rejected to make an adjustment for credit costs to the bulk of sales by the analogue country producer. According to the applicant, the applicant demonstrated that the evidence on record contradicted the Commission’s position that had initially led it to not make such adjustment, and rather than drawing the right conclusions about the need to make adjustments for credit terms, the Commission made an adjustment for a single specific customer in violation of its obligations.

| — | Finally, so the applicant states, the Commission recognized that there were differences between the raw materials used and the productivity of the analogue country producer and the applicant, but rejected to make any adjustments for these differences. In this respect, so the applicant states, the Commission inter alia ignored the statements by the analogue country producer itself which demonstrated that these differences existed and had an impact on price comparability. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, so the applicant states, the Commission recognized that there were differences between the raw materials used and the productivity of the analogue country producer and the applicant, but rejected to make any adjustments for these differences. In this respect, so the applicant states, the Commission inter alia ignored the statements by the analogue country producer itself which demonstrated that these differences existed and had an impact on price comparability.

| — | According to the applicant, the Commission further imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on Jinan in violation of its obligations under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of sound administration, in relation to each of the requested adjustments addressed above. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to the applicant, the Commission further imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on Jinan in violation of its obligations under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of sound administration, in relation to each of the requested adjustments addressed above.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 2(7)(a), 2(10), 2(10)(a) and 2(11) of the Basic regulation by means if the dumping margin determination with respect to non-matching product types.






  — | The applicant puts forward that by determining the normal value for non-matching product types on the basis of the average normal value adjusted by the value of the product differences which was determined on the basis of the difference between the export prices charged by the applicant, the Commission adopted an unreasonable methodology to determine the normal value, in violation of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation. According to the applicant, this is based on the assumption that the market value of the differences in physical characteristics is reflected in the export prices, whereas in reality the export prices of the matching product types used as proxy reflect, based on the findings of the Commission, at least partially the dumping. According to the applicant, the methodology incorporates an assumption that the exports of the non-matching product types in question are priced at a level that is dumped at the exact same margin as that found to exist for the matching product types. The applicant considers this assumption unreasonable and unverifiable. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 2(7)(a), 2(10), 2(10)(a) and 2(11) of the Basic regulation by means if the dumping margin determination with respect to non-matching product types.

—

The applicant puts forward that by determining the normal value for non-matching product types on the basis of the average normal value adjusted by the value of the product differences which was determined on the basis of the difference between the export prices charged by the applicant, the Commission adopted an unreasonable methodology to determine the normal value, in violation of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation. According to the applicant, this is based on the assumption that the market value of the differences in physical characteristics is reflected in the export prices, whereas in reality the export prices of the matching product types used as proxy reflect, based on the findings of the Commission, at least partially the dumping. According to the applicant, the methodology incorporates an assumption that the exports of the non-matching product types in question are priced at a level that is dumped at the exact same margin as that found to exist for the matching product types. The applicant considers this assumption unreasonable and unverifiable.

| — | The applicant further submits that by adopting a methodology that results in an assumption of dumping for the non-matching product types at the same level as that for the matching product types, the dumping margin eventually obtained does not reflect the full degree of dumping being practiced contrary to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further submits that by adopting a methodology that results in an assumption of dumping for the non-matching product types at the same level as that for the matching product types, the dumping margin eventually obtained does not reflect the full degree of dumping being practiced contrary to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation by relying on inaccurate import data or violation of Article 3, Article 9(4) and 9(5) of the Basic regulation by imposing duties on the applicant without any finding of injury or causation.






  — | Unless the Court were to consider that the Contested Regulation incorporates the injury and causation findings included in the Annulled Regulation (2) by reference, the applicant submits that in view of the annulment of the Annulled Regulation as a whole with respect to the applicant, the Contested Regulation imposes anti-dumping duties on the imports by the applicant without having regard to the requirements laid down with respect to elements other than dumping. According to the applicant this leads, inter alia, to a violation of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, as a definitive anti-dumping duty is being imposed without a finding of injury and causation, and Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation, as a definitive anti-dumping duty has been imposed on a source that was not found to be causing injury. The applicant puts forward that in the absence of any injury findings in a Regulation that exists with respect to the applicant, the Commission also violated Article 3 of the Basic Regulation which deals with the determination of injury. The applicant further submits that the statement of reasons is also lacking. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation by relying on inaccurate import data or violation of Article 3, Article 9(4) and 9(5) of the Basic regulation by imposing duties on the applicant without any finding of injury or causation.

—

Unless the Court were to consider that the Contested Regulation incorporates the injury and causation findings included in the Annulled Regulation (2) by reference, the applicant submits that in view of the annulment of the Annulled Regulation as a whole with respect to the applicant, the Contested Regulation imposes anti-dumping duties on the imports by the applicant without having regard to the requirements laid down with respect to elements other than dumping. According to the applicant this leads, inter alia, to a violation of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, as a definitive anti-dumping duty is being imposed without a finding of injury and causation, and Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation, as a definitive anti-dumping duty has been imposed on a source that was not found to be causing injury. The applicant puts forward that in the absence of any injury findings in a Regulation that exists with respect to the applicant, the Commission also violated Article 3 of the Basic Regulation which deals with the determination of injury. The applicant further submits that the statement of reasons is also lacking.

| — | Alternatively, so the applicant claims, the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation by relying on inaccurate import data. Indeed, according to the applicant, for the finding of injury, reliance was made on import data which, on the basis of the information available to the Commission, clearly included imports of products that cannot be considered to be the product concerned. The applicant puts forward that the Commission, however, failed to take the necessary steps to verify the accurateness of the import data and to correct them by excluding imports of products that cannot be considered to be the product concerned. The applicant comes to the conclusion that as a result, the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, so the applicant claims, the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation by relying on inaccurate import data. Indeed, according to the applicant, for the finding of injury, reliance was made on import data which, on the basis of the information available to the Commission, clearly included imports of products that cannot be considered to be the product concerned. The applicant puts forward that the Commission, however, failed to take the necessary steps to verify the accurateness of the import data and to correct them by excluding imports of products that cannot be considered to be the product concerned. The applicant comes to the conclusion that as a result, the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 266 TFUE and Article 9(4) of the 2009 Basic Regulation as the Council should have implemented the judgment, not the Commission
  According to the applicant, the procedure provided for by the 2009 Basic Regulation, which by the Commission’s own admission was the law applicable to the reinvestigation, requires an imposition by the Council acting on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation of the Advisory Committee. The applicant states that this procedure was not followed and that therefore, the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of Article 9(4) of the 2009 basic Regulation and Article 266 TFEU which requires the institution whose act has been declared void to take the necessary measures to comply. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 266 TFUE and Article 9(4) of the 2009 Basic Regulation as the Council should have implemented the judgment, not the Commission

According to the applicant, the procedure provided for by the 2009 Basic Regulation, which by the Commission’s own admission was the law applicable to the reinvestigation, requires an imposition by the Council acting on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation of the Advisory Committee. The applicant states that this procedure was not followed and that therefore, the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of Article 9(4) of the 2009 basic Regulation and Article 266 TFEU which requires the institution whose act has been declared void to take the necessary measures to comply.

---

(1)  References to the Basic Regulation are deemed to refer in primary order to the 2009 Basic Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members to the European Community, OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) and in subsidiary order to the corresponding provision of the 2016 Basic Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013, L 129, p. 1).

---