# Official Journal C 63/27 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 63 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6027 February 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 63

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6027 February 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 63/01 | 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 63/01

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 63/02 | Case C-128/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Fisheries — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 — Validity — Fishing opportunities — Precautionary approach — Principle of relative stability of fishing activities — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment — Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier) | 2 |
| 2017/C 63/03 | Case C-289/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 7 — Condition of double criminality — Article 9 — Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality — National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority) | 2 |
| 2017/C 63/04 | Case C-411/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure — Unlimited jurisdiction — Protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment — Reasonable length of proceedings) | 3 |
| 2017/C 63/05 | Case C-491/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Rainer Typke v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 3 — Notion of document — Article 2(3) — Documents held by an institution — Characterisation of information contained in a database — Obligation to create a document which does not already exist — None — Existing documents capable of being extracted from a database) | 4 |
| 2017/C 63/06 | Joined Cases C-568/14 to C-570/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — Floor clause — Collective proceedings — Individual action with the same subject matter — Interim relief) | 4 |
| 2017/C 63/07 | Case C-446/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction — Refusal — Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services — Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks) | 5 |
| 2017/C 63/08 | Case C-526/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Inadmissibility — Transportation of persons by motor vehicles — Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas — Requirement to hold an operating permit) | 6 |
| 2017/C 63/09 | Case C-575/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark ZARA — Transport services — Genuine use — Revocation proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Distortion of evidence — Rights of the defence) | 6 |
| 2017/C 63/10 | Case C-590/15 P: Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts — Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor — Professional competence — Requirement of full legal training — Recognition of diplomas) | 7 |
| 2017/C 63/11 | Case C-637/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2016 — VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public health — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims on foods — Article 13(3) — Community list of permitted health claims on foods — Botanical substances — Claims on hold — Action for failure to act and for annulment — Definition of position by the European Commission — Challengeable act) | 7 |
| 2017/C 63/12 | Case C-697/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a call for tenders — Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — That obligation created by case-law — Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission) | 8 |
| 2017/C 63/13 | Joined Cases C-10/16 to C-12/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, Italy) — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Decision to refer — Insufficient information regarding the legal and factual context — Insufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving a dispute in the main proceedings — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility) | 9 |
| 2017/C 63/14 | Case C-140/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission) | 9 |
| 2017/C 63/15 | Case C-162/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise — Italy) — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission) | 10 |
| 2017/C 63/16 | Case C-222/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — MIP-TS OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 — Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China — Anti-dumping duties — Implementing Regulations (EU) No 437/2012 and (EU) No 21/2013 — Consignment from Thailand — Extension of anti-dumping duties — Temporal scope — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import duties) | 11 |
| 2017/C 63/17 | Case C-321/16: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 — Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 12 |
| 2017/C 63/18 | Case C-577/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 12 |
| 2017/C 63/19 | Case C-594/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italia lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Buccioni v Banca d’Italia | 13 |
| 2017/C 63/20 | Case C-596/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) | 14 |
| 2017/C 63/21 | Case C-597/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca | 15 |
| 2017/C 63/22 | Case C-616/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Nello Grassi and Others | 15 |
| 2017/C 63/23 | Case C-617/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Giovanna Castellano and Others | 16 |
| 2017/C 63/24 | Case C-630/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Anstar Oy | 17 |
| 2017/C 63/25 | Case C-650/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet | 18 |
| 2017/C 63/26 | Case C-669/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 18 |
| 2017/C 63/27 | Case C-4/17 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2017 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-141/15 Czech Republic v Commission | 19 |
| 2017/C 63/28 | Case C-6/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission | 20 |
| 2017/C 63/29 | Case C-7/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission | 21 |
| 2017/C 63/30 | Case C-495/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 63/31 | Case T-189/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2017 — Deza v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) — Decision to disclose certain information considered confidential by the applicant — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Concept of private life — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons) | 23 |
| 2017/C 63/32 | Case T-225/15: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU trade mark medialbo — Earlier EU word mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Registration of the transfer of the mark — Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 24 |
| 2017/C 63/33 | Case T-250/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLAN — Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue — Relevant public — Interdependence of the criteria — Power to alter — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 24 |
| 2017/C 63/34 | Case T-399/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan — Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2017/C 63/35 | Case T-419/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament (Public works contracts — Procurement procedure — Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Annulment of the procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Market value — Manifest error of assessment) | 26 |
| 2017/C 63/36 | Case T-701/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA — Earlier national word mark Lubeca — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the public — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2017/C 63/37 | Case T-54/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark NETGURU — Absolute ground for refusal — Lac k of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2017/C 63/38 | Case T-64/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2017/C 63/39 | Case T-232/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Commission v Frieberger and Vallin (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Raising of the retirement age — Decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights — Principle of ne ultra petita — Error in law — Obligation to state reasons) | 28 |
| 2017/C 63/40 | Case T-314/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Ms v Commission | 29 |
| 2017/C 63/41 | Case T-886/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY) | 30 |
| 2017/C 63/42 | Case T-890/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission | 31 |
| 2017/C 63/43 | Case T-891/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission | 32 |
| 2017/C 63/44 | Case T-904/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions | 33 |
| 2017/C 63/45 | Case T-907/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Schwenk Zement v Commission | 33 |
| 2017/C 63/46 | Case T-912/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA) | 34 |
| 2017/C 63/47 | Case T-913/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB | 35 |
| 2017/C 63/48 | Case T-2/17: Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI) | 37 |
| 2017/C 63/49 | Case T-6/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA) | 38 |
| 2017/C 63/50 | Case T-7/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC) | 38 |
| 2017/C 63/51 | Case T-8/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) | 39 |
| 2017/C 63/52 | Case T-12/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission | 40 |
| 2017/C 63/53 | Case T-13/17: Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament | 40 |
| 2017/C 63/54 | Case T-14/17: Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Landesbank Baden Württemberg v SRB | 41 |
| 2017/C 63/55 | Case T-15/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS) | 43 |
| 2017/C 63/56 | Case T-16/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — APF v Parliament | 43 |
| 2017/C 63/57 | Case T-25/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD) | 44 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 63/02

Case C-128/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Fisheries — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 — Validity — Fishing opportunities — Precautionary approach — Principle of relative stability of fishing activities — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment — Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier)

2

2017/C 63/03

Case C-289/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 7 — Condition of double criminality — Article 9 — Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality — National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority)

2

2017/C 63/04

Case C-411/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure — Unlimited jurisdiction — Protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment — Reasonable length of proceedings)

3

2017/C 63/05

Case C-491/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Rainer Typke v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 3 — Notion of document — Article 2(3) — Documents held by an institution — Characterisation of information contained in a database — Obligation to create a document which does not already exist — None — Existing documents capable of being extracted from a database)

4

2017/C 63/06

Joined Cases C-568/14 to C-570/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — Floor clause — Collective proceedings — Individual action with the same subject matter — Interim relief)

4

2017/C 63/07

Case C-446/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction — Refusal — Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services — Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks)

5

2017/C 63/08

Case C-526/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Inadmissibility — Transportation of persons by motor vehicles — Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas — Requirement to hold an operating permit)

6

2017/C 63/09

Case C-575/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark ZARA — Transport services — Genuine use — Revocation proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Distortion of evidence — Rights of the defence)

6

2017/C 63/10

Case C-590/15 P: Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts — Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor — Professional competence — Requirement of full legal training — Recognition of diplomas)

7

2017/C 63/11

Case C-637/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2016 — VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public health — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims on foods — Article 13(3) — Community list of permitted health claims on foods — Botanical substances — Claims on hold — Action for failure to act and for annulment — Definition of position by the European Commission — Challengeable act)

7

2017/C 63/12

Case C-697/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a call for tenders — Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — That obligation created by case-law — Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission)

8

2017/C 63/13

Joined Cases C-10/16 to C-12/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, Italy) — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Decision to refer — Insufficient information regarding the legal and factual context — Insufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving a dispute in the main proceedings — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

9

2017/C 63/14

Case C-140/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

9

2017/C 63/15

Case C-162/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise — Italy) — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

10

2017/C 63/16

Case C-222/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — MIP-TS OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 — Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China — Anti-dumping duties — Implementing Regulations (EU) No 437/2012 and (EU) No 21/2013 — Consignment from Thailand — Extension of anti-dumping duties — Temporal scope — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import duties)

11

2017/C 63/17

Case C-321/16: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 — Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

12

2017/C 63/18

Case C-577/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

12

2017/C 63/19

Case C-594/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italia lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Buccioni v Banca d’Italia

13

2017/C 63/20

Case C-596/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

14

2017/C 63/21

Case C-597/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca

15

2017/C 63/22

Case C-616/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Nello Grassi and Others

15

2017/C 63/23

Case C-617/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Giovanna Castellano and Others

16

2017/C 63/24

Case C-630/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Anstar Oy

17

2017/C 63/25

Case C-650/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet

18

2017/C 63/26

Case C-669/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

18

2017/C 63/27

Case C-4/17 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2017 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-141/15 Czech Republic v Commission

19

2017/C 63/28

Case C-6/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission

ANKO

European Commission

20

2017/C 63/29

Case C-7/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission

ANKO

European Commission

21

2017/C 63/30

Case C-495/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands

22

General Court

2017/C 63/31

Case T-189/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2017 — Deza v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) — Decision to disclose certain information considered confidential by the applicant — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Concept of private life — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)

23

2017/C 63/32

Case T-225/15: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU trade mark medialbo — Earlier EU word mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Registration of the transfer of the mark — Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009)

24

2017/C 63/33

Case T-250/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLAN — Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue — Relevant public — Interdependence of the criteria — Power to alter — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

24

2017/C 63/34

Case T-399/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan — Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

25

2017/C 63/35

Case T-419/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament (Public works contracts — Procurement procedure — Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Annulment of the procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Market value — Manifest error of assessment)

26

2017/C 63/36

Case T-701/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA — Earlier national word mark Lubeca — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the public — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

26

2017/C 63/37

Case T-54/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark NETGURU — Absolute ground for refusal — Lac k of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

27

2017/C 63/38

Case T-64/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

28

2017/C 63/39

Case T-232/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Commission v Frieberger and Vallin (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Raising of the retirement age — Decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights — Principle of ne ultra petita — Error in law — Obligation to state reasons)

28

2017/C 63/40

Case T-314/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

29

2017/C 63/41

Case T-886/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)

30

2017/C 63/42

Case T-890/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

31

2017/C 63/43

Case T-891/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

32

2017/C 63/44

Case T-904/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

33

2017/C 63/45

Case T-907/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Schwenk Zement v Commission

33

2017/C 63/46

Case T-912/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

34

2017/C 63/47

Case T-913/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB

35

2017/C 63/48

Case T-2/17: Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)

37

2017/C 63/49

Case T-6/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)

38

2017/C 63/50

Case T-7/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)

38

2017/C 63/51

Case T-8/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

39

2017/C 63/52

Case T-12/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission

40

2017/C 63/53

Case T-13/17: Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament

40

2017/C 63/54

Case T-14/17: Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Landesbank Baden Württemberg v SRB

41

2017/C 63/55

Case T-15/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)

43

2017/C 63/56

Case T-16/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — APF v Parliament

43

2017/C 63/57

Case T-25/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

44

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/1

---

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

(2017/C 063/01)

Last publication

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017

Past publications

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017

OJ C 38, 6.2.2017

OJ C 30, 30.1.2017

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017

OJ C 14, 16.1.2017

OJ C 6, 9.1.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-128/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Fisheries - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 - Validity - Fishing opportunities - Precautionary approach - Principle of relative stability of fishing activities - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Roundnose grenadier and roughhead grenadier))

(2017/C 063/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, A. de Gregorio Merino and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, I. Galindo Martín and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

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

3.

Order the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza

(Case C-289/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 7 - Condition of double criminality - Article 9 - Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality - National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority))

(2017/C 063/03)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Party in the main proceedings

Joszef Grundza

Intervening party: Krajská prokuratúra Prešov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3) and Article 9(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of double criminality must be considered to be met, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the factual elements underlying the offence, as reflected in the judgment handed down by the competent authority of the issuing State, would also, per se, be subject to a criminal sanction in the territory of the executing State if they were present in that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) v European Commission

(Case C-411/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure - Unlimited jurisdiction - Protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment - Reasonable length of proceedings))

(2017/C 063/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Timab Industries, Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (represented by: N. Lenoir, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2017 — Rainer Typke v European Commission

(Case C-491/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 3 - Notion of document - Article 2(3) - Documents held by an institution - Characterisation of information contained in a database - Obligation to create a document which does not already exist - None - Existing documents capable of being extracted from a database))

(2017/C 063/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Rainer Typke (represented by: C. Cortese, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Rainer Typke to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14)

(Joined Cases C-568/14 to C-570/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Collective proceedings - Individual action with the same subject matter - Interim relief))

(2017/C 063/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ismael Fernández Oliva (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales (C-570/14)

Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14)

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit a court seised of an individual action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a term of a contract binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair to adopt interim relief of its own motion, for as long as it considers appropriate, pending a final judgment in an ongoing collective action, the outcome of which may be applied to the individual action, when such relief is necessary in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed by the consumer under Directive 93/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

(Case C-446/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal - Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services - Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks))

(2017/C 063/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Signum Alfa Sped Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

Operative part of the order

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national practice under which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax which is payable or paid in respect of services supplied to it on the ground that the invoices relating to those services lack verisimilitude since the issuer of those invoices could not be the real supplier of those services, unless it is established, in the light of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks not required of it, that that taxable person knew or should have known that those services were involved in value added tax fraud, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

(Case C-526/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Inadmissibility - Transportation of persons by motor vehicles - Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas - Requirement to hold an operating permit))

(2017/C 063/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

in the presence of: Uber International BV, Rasier Operations BV, Uber BV, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi — and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Dutch-language Commercial Court, Brussels, Belgium), by decision of 23 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-575/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Word mark ZARA - Transport services - Genuine use - Revocation proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Distortion of evidence - Rights of the defence))

(2017/C 063/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

---

Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-590/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public service contracts - Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts - Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor - Professional competence - Requirement of full legal training - Recognition of diplomas))

(2017/C 063/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (J. Inghelram and S. Chantre, agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Alain Laurent Brouillard is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Alain Laurent Brouillard is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2016 — VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission

(Case C-637/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public health - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims on foods - Article 13(3) - Community list of permitted health claims on foods - Botanical substances - Claims on hold - Action for failure to act and for annulment - Definition of position by the European Commission - Challengeable act))

(2017/C 063/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (represented by: U. Grundmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and S.Grünheid, Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE). |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE).

| 3. | VSM Geneesmiddelen BV shall pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

VSM Geneesmiddelen BV shall pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

| 4. | VSM Geneesmiddelen BV and the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) shall bear their own costs relating to EUCOPE’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

VSM Geneesmiddelen BV and the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) shall bear their own costs relating to EUCOPE’s application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/8

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA

(Case C-697/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a call for tenders - Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work - That obligation created by case-law - Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission))

(2017/C 063/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MB Srl

Defendant: Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA

Operative part of the order

The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure for a public works contract following that tenderer’s failure to comply with the obligation to indicate separately in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — the failure to comply with which carries the penalty of exclusion from the procedure — which is not set out expressly in the tender documents or the national rules, but is based on an interpretation of those rules and the filling in of the gaps in those documents carried out by the national court ruling at final instance. The principles of equal treatment and proportionality must also be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the possibility of granting that tenderer an opportunity to remedy the situation and to satisfy that obligation within a period prescribed by the contracting authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/9

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, Italy) — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16)

(Joined Cases C-10/16 to C-12/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Decision to refer - Insufficient information regarding the legal and factual context - Insufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving a dispute in the main proceedings - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 063/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ignazio Messina & C. SpA

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16)

Operative part of the order

The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Provincial Tax Court, Genoa, Italy), by decisions of 11 December 2015, are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini

(Case C-140/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a tendering procedure - Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work - Judicial obligation to include such a reference - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))

(2017/C 063/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl

Defendant: Comune di Maiolati Spontini

Joined party: Torelli Dottori SpA

Operative part of the order

The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time-limit set by the awarding authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/10

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise — Italy) — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni

(Case C-162/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a tendering procedure - Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work - Judicial obligation to include such a reference - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))

(2017/C 063/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl

Defendant: Comune di Monteroduni

Joined party: I.c.i Impresa Costruzioni Industriali Srl and Others, Alba Costruzioni ScpA, Ottoerre Group Srl

Operative part of the order

The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time-limit set by the awarding authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/11

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — ‘MIP-TS’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-222/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 - Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China - Anti-dumping duties - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 437/2012 and (EU) No 21/2013 - Consignment from Thailand - Extension of anti-dumping duties - Temporal scope - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import duties))

(2017/C 063/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘MIP-TS’ OOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

Operative part

Article 1(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 of 3 August 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China must be interpreted as meaning that the definitive anti-dumping duty established by that provision is applicable to imports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres, referred to in that provision, declared as having originated in Thailand and carried out prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 of 23 May 2012 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation No 791/2011, and making those exports subject to registration, such as the imports at issue in the main proceedings, where it is established that those open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in fact originate in the People’s Republic of China.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/12

---

Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin District Court — Ireland) — Criminal proceedings against Owen Pardue

(Case C-321/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 - Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2017/C 063/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Dublin District Court

Criminal proceedings against

Owen Pardue

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Dublin District Court (Ireland) by decision of 27 May 2016.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.6.2016

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany lodged on 16 November 2016 — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-577/16)

(2017/C 063/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in conjunction with Annex I thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the production of polymers and of the polymer polycarbonate in particular in installations with a production capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day falls within the activity defined therein as production of bulk organic chemicals by cracking, reforming, partial or full oxidation or by similar processes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in conjunction with Annex I thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the production of polymers and of the polymer polycarbonate in particular in installations with a production capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day falls within the activity defined therein as production of bulk organic chemicals by cracking, reforming, partial or full oxidation or by similar processes?

| 2. | If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, does the operator of such an installation have a claim to free allocation of emissions allowances arising from a direct application of the rules of Directive 2003/87/EC and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (2) if there can be no free allocation of emissions allowances under national law solely because the Member State in question did not include installations for the production of polymers in the scope of the national law implementing Directive 2003/87/EC and such installations do not take part in emissions trading for that reason alone? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, does the operator of such an installation have a claim to free allocation of emissions allowances arising from a direct application of the rules of Directive 2003/87/EC and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (2) if there can be no free allocation of emissions allowances under national law solely because the Member State in question did not include installations for the production of polymers in the scope of the national law implementing Directive 2003/87/EC and such installations do not take part in emissions trading for that reason alone?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italia lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Buccioni v Banca d’Italia

(Case C-594/16)

(2017/C 063/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enzo Buccioni

Defendant: Banca d’Italia

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the principle of transparency, which is clearly set out in Article 15 of the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union], with its binding general objective, if construed as meaning that (that principle) may be regulated by the sources of law or equivalent provided for in Article 15(3), the content of which could suggest an excessively broad discretion that lacks foundation in a higher source of European law as regards the need to predetermine minimum principles from which there is no derogation, not at variance with the restrictive objective in European legislation concerning the supervision of the credit institutions, to such a degree that the principle of transparency itself is rendered ineffective, including in circumstances in which the interest in access is founded on vital interests of the applicant that are clearly comparable to the interests that constitute exceptions, in his favour, to the restrictions in the sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the principle of transparency, which is clearly set out in Article 15 of the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union], with its binding general objective, if construed as meaning that (that principle) may be regulated by the sources of law or equivalent provided for in Article 15(3), the content of which could suggest an excessively broad discretion that lacks foundation in a higher source of European law as regards the need to predetermine minimum principles from which there is no derogation, not at variance with the restrictive objective in European legislation concerning the supervision of the credit institutions, to such a degree that the principle of transparency itself is rendered ineffective, including in circumstances in which the interest in access is founded on vital interests of the applicant that are clearly comparable to the interests that constitute exceptions, in his favour, to the restrictions in the sector?

| 2. | As a result of this, must Article 22(2) and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) of the Council of 15 October 2010, which confers on the European Central Bank specific supervisory tasks in relation to the credit institutions, be interpreted not as non-exceptional cases in which derogations from the non-accessibility of documents are permitted, but as provisions to be interpreted in the light of the broader objectives of Article 15 of the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] and, as such, founded on a general legislative principle of European law according to which access cannot be restricted, following a reasonable and proportionate balancing of the needs of the credit institutions with the fundamental interests of a saver caught up in a case of burden sharing, depending on the relevant circumstances established by a supervisory authority with organisational tasks and responsibilities in the sector comparable to those of the European Central Bank? |
| --- | --- |

2.

As a result of this, must Article 22(2) and Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) of the Council of 15 October 2010, which confers on the European Central Bank specific supervisory tasks in relation to the credit institutions, be interpreted not as non-exceptional cases in which derogations from the non-accessibility of documents are permitted, but as provisions to be interpreted in the light of the broader objectives of Article 15 of the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] and, as such, founded on a general legislative principle of European law according to which access cannot be restricted, following a reasonable and proportionate balancing of the needs of the credit institutions with the fundamental interests of a saver caught up in a case of burden sharing, depending on the relevant circumstances established by a supervisory authority with organisational tasks and responsibilities in the sector comparable to those of the European Central Bank?

| 3. | Consequently, must not Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (text with EEA relevance), and the provisions of national law that reflect it, be reconciled with the remaining rules and principles of European law, as set out in the first question, to the effect that access may be granted, where requested after the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, including where the request for access is not made exclusively in the context of civil or commercial proceedings that have actually been brought to protect the financial interests that have been prejudiced because the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, but also where the request is addressed to a judicial body authorised by the national State to safeguard the right of access and transparency, specifically in order to determine the actual possibility of bringing such civil or commercial proceedings, before they are in fact instituted, with a view to protecting in full the rights of defence and the right to bring proceedings, with specific reference to the request of a saver who has already suffered the effects of burden sharing in connection with the winding up of the credit institution with which he deposited his savings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Consequently, must not Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (text with EEA relevance), and the provisions of national law that reflect it, be reconciled with the remaining rules and principles of European law, as set out in the first question, to the effect that access may be granted, where requested after the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, including where the request for access is not made exclusively in the context of civil or commercial proceedings that have actually been brought to protect the financial interests that have been prejudiced because the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, but also where the request is addressed to a judicial body authorised by the national State to safeguard the right of access and transparency, specifically in order to determine the actual possibility of bringing such civil or commercial proceedings, before they are in fact instituted, with a view to protecting in full the rights of defence and the right to bring proceedings, with specific reference to the request of a saver who has already suffered the effects of burden sharing in connection with the winding up of the credit institution with which he deposited his savings?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-596/16)

(2017/C 063/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Enzo Di Puma

Respondent: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, this precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, this precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?

| 2. | In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the principle ne bis in idem referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the national court take into account the limits for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the principle ne bis in idem referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the national court take into account the limits for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1)

---

(1)  Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 179).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca

(Case C-597/16)

(2017/C 063/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Respondent: Antonio Zecca

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, it precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, it precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?

| 2. | In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the ne bis in idem principle referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must a national court take into account the thresholds for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the ne bis in idem principle referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must a national court take into account the thresholds for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1)

---

(1)  Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 179).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Nello Grassi and Others

(Case C-616/16)

(2017/C 063/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Gianni Pantuso, Angelo Tralongo, Maria Michela D’Alessandro

Respondents and cross-appellants: Nello Grassi, Carmela Amato, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Directive 82/76, (1) which amended Directives 75/362 (2) and 75/363, (3) to be interpreted as including within its scope full-time and part-time courses for trainee medical specialists which had already begun by 31 December 1982 and continued after that date, that being the date by which the Member States were to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with the directive, in accordance with Article 16 thereof?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Directive 82/76, (1) which amended Directives 75/362 (2) and 75/363, (3) to be interpreted as including within its scope full-time and part-time courses for trainee medical specialists which had already begun by 31 December 1982 and continued after that date, that being the date by which the Member States were to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with the directive, in accordance with Article 16 thereof?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,

| 2. | Is the annex which was appended to the ‘coordination’ directive (Directive 75/363) by Article 13 of Directive 82/76, which amended Directives 75/362 and 75/363, to be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to specialist training courses which had already begun by 31 December 1982, the obligation to provide trainee specialists with adequate remuneration is dependent on fulfilment of the obligation to reorganise courses or on compliance with the requirements of the abovementioned directives? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the annex which was appended to the ‘coordination’ directive (Directive 75/363) by Article 13 of Directive 82/76, which amended Directives 75/362 and 75/363, to be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to specialist training courses which had already begun by 31 December 1982, the obligation to provide trainee specialists with adequate remuneration is dependent on fulfilment of the obligation to reorganise courses or on compliance with the requirements of the abovementioned directives?

| 3. | With respect to specialist doctors who pursued specialist training courses which began before 1 January 1983 but had not ended by that date, was there any obligation to pay them adequate remuneration for the entire duration of the course or for the period after 31 December 1982 alone and, if so, to what conditions, if any, was that obligation subject? |
| --- | --- |

3.

With respect to specialist doctors who pursued specialist training courses which began before 1 January 1983 but had not ended by that date, was there any obligation to pay them adequate remuneration for the entire duration of the course or for the period after 31 December 1982 alone and, if so, to what conditions, if any, was that obligation subject?

---

(1)  Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21).

(2)  Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 1).

(3)  Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 14).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Giovanna Castellano and Others

(Case C-617/16)

(2017/C 063/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Respondents and cross-appellants: Giovanna Castellano, Maria Concetta Pandolfo, Antonio Marletta, Vito Mannino, Olga Gagliardo, Emilio Nardi, Maria Catania, Massimo Gallucci, Giovanna Pischedda, Giambattista Gagliardo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Directive 82/76, (1) which amended Directives 75/362 (2) and 75/363, (3) to be interpreted as including within its scope full-time and part-time courses for trainee medical specialists which had already begun by 31 December 1982 and continued after that date, that being the date by which the Member States were to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with the directive, in accordance with Article 16 thereof?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Directive 82/76, (1) which amended Directives 75/362 (2) and 75/363, (3) to be interpreted as including within its scope full-time and part-time courses for trainee medical specialists which had already begun by 31 December 1982 and continued after that date, that being the date by which the Member States were to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with the directive, in accordance with Article 16 thereof?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,

| 2. | Is the annex appended to the ‘coordination’ directive (Directive 75/363) by Article 13 of Directive 82/76, which amended Directives 75/362 and 75/363, to be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to specialist training courses which had already begun by 31 December 1982, the obligation to provide trainee specialists with adequate remuneration is dependent on fulfilment of the obligation to reorganise courses or on compliance with the requirements of the abovementioned directives? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the annex appended to the ‘coordination’ directive (Directive 75/363) by Article 13 of Directive 82/76, which amended Directives 75/362 and 75/363, to be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to specialist training courses which had already begun by 31 December 1982, the obligation to provide trainee specialists with adequate remuneration is dependent on fulfilment of the obligation to reorganise courses or on compliance with the requirements of the abovementioned directives?

| 3. | With respect to specialist doctors who pursued specialist training courses which began before 1 January 1983 but had not ended by that date, was there any obligation to pay them adequate remuneration for the entire duration of the course or for the period after 31 December 1982 alone and, if so, to what conditions, if any, was that obligation subject? |
| --- | --- |

3.

With respect to specialist doctors who pursued specialist training courses which began before 1 January 1983 but had not ended by that date, was there any obligation to pay them adequate remuneration for the entire duration of the course or for the period after 31 December 1982 alone and, if so, to what conditions, if any, was that obligation subject?

---

(1)  Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21).

(2)  Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 1).

(3)  Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 14).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Anstar Oy

(Case C-630/16)

(2017/C 063/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anstar Oy

Other party: Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto (Tukes)

Questions referred

| 1. | Are mandate M/120 and harmonised standard EN 1090-1 (:2009+A1:2011) drawn up on the basis of that mandate to be interpreted as meaning that the products to be fixed into concrete before it sets (suspension system products used for fixing shell elements and brickwork supports to the building frame, and certain foundation bolts, fastening plates and standard steel parts, bracing systems, column shoes and wall shoes, and balcony connections) listed in points 1 to 4 of the decision of Tukes do not fall within their scope? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are mandate M/120 and harmonised standard EN 1090-1 (:2009+A1:2011) drawn up on the basis of that mandate to be interpreted as meaning that the products to be fixed into concrete before it sets (suspension system products used for fixing shell elements and brickwork supports to the building frame, and certain foundation bolts, fastening plates and standard steel parts, bracing systems, column shoes and wall shoes, and balcony connections) listed in points 1 to 4 of the decision of Tukes do not fall within their scope?

| 2. | Do the Construction Products Regulation, (1) the Commission mandates mentioned in the present case, or EU law otherwise preclude Tukes’s interpretation that the aforesaid products are outside the scope of mandate M/120 and standard EN 1090-1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the Construction Products Regulation, (1) the Commission mandates mentioned in the present case, or EU law otherwise preclude Tukes’s interpretation that the aforesaid products are outside the scope of mandate M/120 and standard EN 1090-1?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-650/16)

(2017/C 063/25)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is possible to make deductions for losses in domestic branches, whilst it is not possible to make deductions for losses in branches situated in other Member States, including in conditions equivalent to those in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment in Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, (1) paragraphs 55 and 56, unless the group has elected international joint taxation on the terms as set out in the main proceedings?

---

(1)  (EU:C:2005:763)

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

---

Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-669/16)

(2017/C 063/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Norris-Usher, C. Hermes, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to designate sites for the protection of the species phocoena phocoena (harbour porpoise) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1), Annex II and Annex III of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to designate sites for the protection of the species phocoena phocoena (harbour porpoise) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1), Annex II and Annex III of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

| — | declare that by its corresponding failure to contribute to the creation of a Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of the species harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of the same Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by its corresponding failure to contribute to the creation of a Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of the species harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of the same Directive;

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena) is an aquatic cetacean species which is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive as a species of community interest requiring the designation of specific areas of conservation. A significant population of the species within the European Union is hosted in marine waters in which the United Kingdom exercises sovereign rights.

Pursuant to Articles 3(2) and 4(1) as well as Annexes II and III of the Habitats Directive, Member States hosting the harbour porpoise in their marine waters shall propose sites for their protection and, by so doing, contribute to the creation of the Natura 2000 network. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the proposed list of sites must be exhaustive.

The United Kingdom has not proposed sufficient sites for the harbour porpoise.

---

(1)  OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

---

Appeal brought on 4 January 2017 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-141/15 Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-4/17 P)

(2017/C 063/27)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Pavliš, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2016 in Case T-141/15 Czech Republic v Commission (‘the judgment under appeal’) in which the Czech Republic sought annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 (1) of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 53) (‘the contested decision’), in so far as it excludes the expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in the period from 2010 to 2012 coming to a total of EUR 2 123 199,04.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it excludes expenditure coming to a total of EUR 2 123 199,04 incurred by the Czech Republic, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it excludes expenditure coming to a total of EUR 2 123 199,04 incurred by the Czech Republic, and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal in cassation, the appellant puts forward three grounds.

The first ground of appeal is based on the infringement of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (2) of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine (‘Regulation No 479/2008), in so far as the General Court is alleged to have erred in law in finding that Article 11 of that Regulation did not cover measures for protection of vine stocks against damage caused by animals and/or birds.

The second ground of appeal is based on the infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 479/2008 and the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court is alleged to have erred in law in finding that the European Commission may declare certain measures to be entirely ineligible for European Union financing and on those grounds exclude from financing all expenses incurred in connection with those measures, despite the fact that the European Commission itself examined the eligibility of those measures in assessing the draft support programme and did not put forward any objections.

The third ground of appeal is based on the infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (3) of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, and as appropriate with Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and with Articles 11 and 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (5) of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD. The General Court is alleged to have erred in law in the judgment under appeal in finding that the European Commission could exclude from European Union financing expenses pertaining to a period with regard to which the Czech Republic was prevented from expressing its view under the procedure set out for financial corrections in connection with agriculture.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1.

(4)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

(5)  OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/20

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-6/17 P)

(2017/C 063/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

| i. | First
  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment. |
| --- | --- |

i.

First
  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.

| ii. | Second
  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Second
  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.

Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:

| I. | In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:






  1) | First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

I.

In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:

1)

First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.

| 2) | Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.

| II. | With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:






  3) | Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- | --- |

II.

With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:

3)

Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

| 4) | Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/21

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-7/17 P)

(2017/C 063/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment of 27 April 2016 of the General Court in Case T-155/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

| i. | First
  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment. |
| --- | --- |

i.

First
  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.

| ii. | Second
  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Second
  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.

Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:

| I. | In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:






  1) | First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

I.

In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:

1)

First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.

| 2) | Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.

| II. | With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:






  3) | Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- | --- |

II.

With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:

3)

Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

| 4) | Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-495/15) (1)

(2017/C 063/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

General Court

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2017 — Deza v ECHA

(Case T-189/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) - Decision to disclose certain information considered confidential by the applicant - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Concept of private life - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 063/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by P. Dejl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by A. Iber, T. Zbihlej and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and by M. Mašková, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, P. Ondrůšek and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), and ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA’s decisions of 24 January 2014 concerning the disclosure of certain information submitted by the applicant in the course of the procedure relating to the application for authorisation to use di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Deza, a.s., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those relating to the application for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Deza, a.s., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;

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

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

| 4) | Orders ClientEarth, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders ClientEarth, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Vereniging Health Care Without Harm Europe to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo)

(Case T-225/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU trade mark medialbo - Earlier EU word mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, Arizona, United States) (represented by: C. Bergmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology and Alexander Bopp.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN)

(Case T-250/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLAN - Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue - Relevant public - Interdependence of the criteria - Power to alter - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst, A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Cormack and G. Anderson, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 220/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between William Grant & Sons Ltd and Speciality Drinks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)

(Case T-399/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan - Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato and F. Gatti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Panama, Panama)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1657/2014 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Morgan & Morgan and Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

(Case T-419/15) (1)

((Public works contracts - Procurement procedure - Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Annulment of the procurement procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Market value - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 063/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Chrétien and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decisions contained in the letters with references D(2015)24297 and D(2015).28116 from the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, respectively of 29 May and 11 June 2015, notifying the applicants of the annulment of the procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 for the award of Lot No 75, entitled ‘electricity — power’ for the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Stock Polska v EUIPO — Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA)

(Case T-701/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark LUBELSKA - Earlier national word mark Lubeca - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the public - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stock Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2015 (Case R 1788/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lass & Steffen Wein- und Spirituosen-Import and Stock Polska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stock Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stock Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU)

(Case T-54/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark NETGURU - Absolute ground for refusal - Lac k of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Netguru sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented: initially by K. Jarosiński, and subsequently by T. Grzybkowski, T. Guzek and M. Jackowski, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 (Case R 144/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign NETGURU as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Netguru sp. z o.o. to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Netguru sp. z o.o. to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)

(Case T-64/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative trade mark Tasty Puff - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Michał Wieromiejczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 3058/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Tasty Puff as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michał Wieromiejczyk to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michał Wieromiejczyk to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Commission v Frieberger and Vallin

(Case T-232/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Raising of the retirement age - Decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights - Principle of ne ultra petita - Error in law - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 063/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Jürgen Frieberger (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Benjamin Vallin (Saint-Gilles, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15, EU:F:2016:26), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Jürgen Frieberger and Benjamin Vallin before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-3/15; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Jürgen Frieberger and Benjamin Vallin before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-3/15;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;

| 4. | Orders Mr Frieberger and Mr Vallin to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, including the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Frieberger and Mr Vallin to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, including the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/29

---

Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

(Case T-314/16)

(2017/C 063/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

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;

and consequently:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 2 February 2016 refusing access to the documents and the decision of 19 April 2016 upholding that refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 2 February 2016 refusing access to the documents and the decision of 19 April 2016 upholding that refusal;

| — | compensate the non-material damage stemming from the wrongful conduct on the part of the European Commission, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the non-material damage stemming from the wrongful conduct on the part of the European Commission, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 20 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and in particular of Articles 2 and 4 thereof.

According to the applicant, in order to refuse access to the requested documents, the Commission relied on two exceptions in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, namely, first, the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual and, secondly, the protection of court proceedings. However, the Commission has not showed that the disclosure of those documents would have undermined the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the persons who have been referred to in those documents. In addition, the transfer of the personal data contained in those documents is absolutely necessary in order to understand the accusations made against the applicant. In the absence of that possibility, the applicant would not enjoy equality of arms and would not be in a position to prepare sufficiently a defence. The access to the documents, and to the personal data in them, is by contrast necessary, justified and proportionate to the aim of sound administration, the protection of the rights of the defence and the respect for the applicant’s privacy. The Commission undermines the applicant’s privacy all the more so in so far as it does not process the personal data concerning the applicant fairly.

In the alternative, the applicant states that the exceptions covered by Article 4 preclude the disclosure of the requested document only if there is no public interest justifying disclosure. It submits that fundamental rights, in particular the rights of the defence, are capable of constituting such a public interest.

In its decision rejecting the confirmatory application, the Commission restricted itself to providing a purely general statement of reasons since it does not explain how partial access to the documents in question would jeopardise the interest of the protection of personal data and of the privacy of the individuals referred to in them.

The applicant submits, lastly, that the unlawful acts committed by the Commission likewise constitute unlawful conduct that has caused him actual and certain damage.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/30

---

Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)

(Case T-886/16)

(2017/C 063/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NAILS FACTORY’ — Application for registration No 13 528 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 202/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision;

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

—

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

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/31

---

Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

(Case T-890/16)

(2017/C 063/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision dated 30 September 2016 (the Contested Decision), concerning certain aid measures granted to certain third parties regarding the financing of the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link Project; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision dated 30 September 2016 (the Contested Decision), concerning certain aid measures granted to certain third parties regarding the financing of the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link Project;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the potential overcompensation involved in the railway fees constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the potential overcompensation involved in the railway fees constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the gratuitous use of State property constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the gratuitous use of State property constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State guarantees to the third party concerned constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State guarantees to the third party concerned constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the capital injections constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the capital injections constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State loans constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State loans constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State aid exceeding the amount authorised by the Planning Decision constitutes existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State aid exceeding the amount authorised by the Planning Decision constitutes existing aid.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the tax advantages constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the tax advantages constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the Contested Aid Measures for the planning phase have been authorised in the Construction Decision. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the Contested Aid Measures for the planning phase have been authorised in the Construction Decision.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/32

---

Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

(Case T-891/16)

(2017/C 063/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant unlawfully failed to act pursuant to Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in that it failed to define its position on the applicants’ complaint of 5 June 2014, concerning State aid granted for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant unlawfully failed to act pursuant to Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in that it failed to define its position on the applicants’ complaint of 5 June 2014, concerning State aid granted for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link;

| — | order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of potential overcompensation involved in the non-commercial railway fees to be paid by the Danish national railway operator DSB to the third party in question for the use of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of potential overcompensation involved in the non-commercial railway fees to be paid by the Danish national railway operator DSB to the third party in question for the use of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of the gratuitous use of State property provided to the third party concerned for the construction of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of the gratuitous use of State property provided to the third party concerned for the construction of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State guarantees to the third party concerned since this was not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State guarantees to the third party concerned since this was not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of capital injections to the third party concerned in excess of amounts authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of capital injections to the third party concerned in excess of amounts authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned while the Planning Decision only authorised the grant of State guarantees (Planning Phase). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned while the Planning Decision only authorised the grant of State guarantees (Planning Phase).

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned in excess of the budget authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase). |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned in excess of the budget authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of tax advantages to the third parties concerned which were not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase). |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of tax advantages to the third parties concerned which were not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/33

---

Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T-904/16)

(2017/C 063/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2016 reassigning the applicant, as an administrator to the Translation Directorate pursuant to the settlement in Case F-33/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2016 reassigning the applicant, as an administrator to the Translation Directorate pursuant to the settlement in Case F-33/15;

| — | hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016;

| — | order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, since the contested decision was adopted in manifest breach of the amicable agreement reached in Case F-33/15 Labri v EESC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, since the contested decision was adopted in manifest breach of the amicable agreement reached in Case F-33/15 Labri v EESC.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the applicant was deliberately misled as to the scope of the agreement reached between the parties and more specifically as to the two committees’ interpretation of the terms of that agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the applicant was deliberately misled as to the scope of the agreement reached between the parties and more specifically as to the two committees’ interpretation of the terms of that agreement.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/33

---

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-907/16)

(2017/C 063/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 (Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia (OJ 2016 C 374, p. 1)).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) read, as appropriate, in conjunction with Paragraph 147 of the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice’)
  In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the examination of the contested concentration does not come within the Commission’s competence. Had the applicant, correctly, not been regarded as a participating undertaking, the turnover thresholds indicated in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 would not have been met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) read, as appropriate, in conjunction with Paragraph 147 of the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice’)

In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the examination of the contested concentration does not come within the Commission’s competence. Had the applicant, correctly, not been regarded as a participating undertaking, the turnover thresholds indicated in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 would not have been met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons
  The applicant claims, in this regard, that, although the Commission did refer to the existence of the exceptional case in Paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice, it failed to prove that the conditions actually existed for such an exceptional case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons

The applicant claims, in this regard, that, although the Commission did refer to the existence of the exceptional case in Paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice, it failed to prove that the conditions actually existed for such an exceptional case.

---

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

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/34

---

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

(Case T-912/16)

(2017/C 063/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘RROFA’ — Application for registration No 12 699 534

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2392/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/35

---

Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB

(Case T-913/16)

(2017/C 063/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest S.p.A. (Fininvest) (Rome, Italy) and Silvio Berlusconi (Rome) (represented by: R. Vaccarella, A. Di Porto, M. Carpinelli and A. Saccucci, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of 25 October 2016 of the European Central Bank, which decided ‘to oppose the acquisition by the Acquirers of a qualifying holding in the target Company’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 25 October 2016 of the European Central Bank, which decided ‘to oppose the acquisition by the Acquirers of a qualifying holding in the target Company’;

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

—

Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision of 25 October 2016 adopted by the European Central Bank (ECB/SSM/2016-7LVZJ6XRIE7VNZ4UBX81/4) under Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (CRD IV) (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338), paragraph 5 of Article 1, Article 4(1)(c) and Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (the SSM Regulation) (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), Article 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1), and Articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Consolidated Italian Banking Code, by which the Central Bank opposed the acquisition, by Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest S.p.A., of a qualifying holding in a credit institution (the target company).

In support of their action, the applicants rely upon eight pleas in law, divided into three blocks.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication of Articles 22 and 23 of the CRD IV, infringement of paragraph 5 of Article 1, Article 4(1)(c) and Article 15 of the SSM Regulation and of Articles 86 and 87 of the SSM Framework Regulation, including in relation to Articles 4(1), 5(2), and 13(2) TEU and Article 127(6) TFEU, and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication of Articles 22 and 23 of the CRD IV, infringement of paragraph 5 of Article 1, Article 4(1)(c) and Article 15 of the SSM Regulation and of Articles 86 and 87 of the SSM Framework Regulation, including in relation to Articles 4(1), 5(2), and 13(2) TEU and Article 127(6) TFEU, and misuse of powers.

| 2. | Second, subsidiary plea in law, based on the fact that the CRD IV, if applied extensively to the present case, infringes the general principle of non-retroactivity of secondary legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, subsidiary plea in law, based on the fact that the CRD IV, if applied extensively to the present case, infringes the general principle of non-retroactivity of secondary legislation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of res judicata in relation to final judgment No 882 of 3 March 2016 of the Consiglio di Stato, which ruled on the effects of the merger authorisation issued by the Banca d’Italia in relation to Fininvest’s holding in the target company.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that this first block of pleas in law attacks the very basis of the contested decision and in particular contests the interpretation of the CRD IV adopted by the ECB as both legally flawed and unlawfully expanding the specific powers conferred on the ECB by the SSM Regulation and by the SSM Framework Regulation, and as detrimental to the res judicata, already in existence at national level as a result of the final judgment of the Consiglio di Stato of 3 March 2016 in relation to the holding in the target company. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of res judicata in relation to final judgment No 882 of 3 March 2016 of the Consiglio di Stato, which ruled on the effects of the merger authorisation issued by the Banca d’Italia in relation to Fininvest’s holding in the target company.

—

The applicants claim in that regard that this first block of pleas in law attacks the very basis of the contested decision and in particular contests the interpretation of the CRD IV adopted by the ECB as both legally flawed and unlawfully expanding the specific powers conferred on the ECB by the SSM Regulation and by the SSM Framework Regulation, and as detrimental to the res judicata, already in existence at national level as a result of the final judgment of the Consiglio di Stato of 3 March 2016 in relation to the holding in the target company.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of the SSM Regulation, Article 23(1) and (4) of the CRD IV, and the general principles of lawfulness, legal certainty and the foreseeability of the administrative action in relation to the ECB’s application of the national transposing legislation, and infringement of the general principles of lawfulness and legal certainty in relation to the ECB’s considering that the Guidelines for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases in holdings in the financial sector required by Directive 2007/44/EC, adopted in 2008 by the CEBS, CESR and CEIOPS Committees, could be invoked against the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of the SSM Regulation, Article 23(1) and (4) of the CRD IV, and the general principles of lawfulness, legal certainty and the foreseeability of the administrative action in relation to the ECB’s application of the national transposing legislation, and infringement of the general principles of lawfulness and legal certainty in relation to the ECB’s considering that the Guidelines for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases in holdings in the financial sector required by Directive 2007/44/EC, adopted in 2008 by the CEBS, CESR and CEIOPS Committees, could be invoked against the applicants.

| 5. | Fifth, subsidiary plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements in the form of failure to carry out a proper inquiry and failure to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the criterion of the ‘likely influence of the proposed acquirer on [the] credit institution’ (Article 23(1) of the CRD IV). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth, subsidiary plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements in the form of failure to carry out a proper inquiry and failure to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the criterion of the ‘likely influence of the proposed acquirer on [the] credit institution’ (Article 23(1) of the CRD IV).

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality, because the contested decision, in essence, produces the effects of a ‘provvedimento ablatorio’ [a measure by which the public authorities compel a person to sacrifice a private interest for the public good], requiring the forced sale of a substantial shareholding, and infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the corresponding general principles of EU law as derived from the European Convention on Human Rights and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.






  — | The applicants claim in that regard that this second block of pleas in law concerns the assessment carried out by the ECB and attacks, first, the reconstruction of the national legislation carried out by the ECB and, second, the failure to conduct a specific assessment of the ‘likely influence of the proposed acquirer on [the] credit institution’ and the failure to observe the principle of proportionality in the area of prudential supervision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality, because the contested decision, in essence, produces the effects of a ‘provvedimento ablatorio’ [a measure by which the public authorities compel a person to sacrifice a private interest for the public good], requiring the forced sale of a substantial shareholding, and infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the corresponding general principles of EU law as derived from the European Convention on Human Rights and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

—

The applicants claim in that regard that this second block of pleas in law concerns the assessment carried out by the ECB and attacks, first, the reconstruction of the national legislation carried out by the ECB and, second, the failure to conduct a specific assessment of the ‘likely influence of the proposed acquirer on [the] credit institution’ and the failure to observe the principle of proportionality in the area of prudential supervision.

The third block of pleas in law, by contrast, is dedicated to a series of serious procedural defects alleged to have invalidated the supervisory procedure and the final decision of the ECB.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence which should have been ‘fully respected’ (Article 22(2) of the SSM Regulation and Article 32(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation) and of the right to sound administration affirmed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, owing to the applicants’ delayed access to the case-file and to the fact that it was impossible for them to know the content of the act of the ECB on the basis of which the authorisation procedure was initiated. The applicants also allege misapplication of Article 32(1) and (5) of the SSM Framework Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence which should have been ‘fully respected’ (Article 22(2) of the SSM Regulation and Article 32(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation) and of the right to sound administration affirmed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, owing to the applicants’ delayed access to the case-file and to the fact that it was impossible for them to know the content of the act of the ECB on the basis of which the authorisation procedure was initiated. The applicants also allege misapplication of Article 32(1) and (5) of the SSM Framework Regulation.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness, on the basis of Article 227 TFEU, of Article 31(3) of the SSM Framework Regulation for breach of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and infringement of the corresponding general principles of law derived from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness, on the basis of Article 227 TFEU, of Article 31(3) of the SSM Framework Regulation for breach of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and infringement of the corresponding general principles of law derived from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/37

---

Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)

(Case T-2/17)

(2017/C 063/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alberto Masi (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASSI’ — EU trade mark No 414 086

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (rectified by decision of 3 November 2016) in Case R 793/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Mr. Alberto Masi against EUTM Registration No. 414086 ‘MASSI’ in class 12; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Mr. Alberto Masi against EUTM Registration No. 414086 ‘MASSI’ in class 12;

| — | order EUIPO, and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO in case it takes part in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO in case it takes part in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (res judicata); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (res judicata);

| — | Lack of application of Article 53(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lack of application of Article 53(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/38

---

Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)

(Case T-6/17)

(2017/C 063/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITM Entreprises SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA’ — Application for registration No 13 576 616

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 690/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action and accordingly annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action and accordingly annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO, as defendant, and, as appropriate, the other party to the proceedings, ITM Entreprises, to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, as defendant, and, as appropriate, the other party to the proceedings, ITM Entreprises, to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

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.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/38

---

Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)

(Case T-7/17)

(2017/C 063/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: John Mills Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. (Surfside, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MINERAL MAGIC’ — EU trade mark application No 12 151 379

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2087/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/39

---

Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

(Case T-8/17)

(2017/C 063/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ — Application for registration No 6 036 503

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2016 in Case R 1962/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/40

---

Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Mellifera v Commission

(Case T-12/17)

(2017/C 063/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision Ares (2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, received by the applicant on 11 November 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision Ares (2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, received by the applicant on 11 November 2016;

| — | order the Commission to adopt a new decision on the merits of the applicant’s request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 on the extension of authorisation for glyphosate; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to adopt a new decision on the merits of the applicant’s request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 on the extension of authorisation for glyphosate;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation and with the Aarhus Convention (2)

  The applicant submits, in connection with the first plea, that the extension of the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act that is amenable to review in the procedure under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation and with the Aarhus Convention (2)

The applicant submits, in connection with the first plea, that the extension of the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act that is amenable to review in the procedure under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3)

  The applicant claims that the Commission was not empowered to extend the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate under the provision referred to above, as that rule was not applicable at all in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3)

The applicant claims that the Commission was not empowered to extend the authorisation for the active substance glyphosate under the provision referred to above, as that rule was not applicable at all in the present case.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(2)  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/40

---

Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament

(Case T-13/17)

(2017/C 063/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Europa Terra Nostra e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Reference: FINS-2017-30) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Reference: FINS-2017-30) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their application






  — | The applicant claims, that under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, (2) guarantees are not at all required for low-value grants. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their application

—

The applicant claims, that under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, (2) guarantees are not at all required for low-value grants.

| — | Moreover, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee because the review request brought against the ‘Alliance for Peace and Freedom’ (APF) is entirely devoid of substance and manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee because the review request brought against the ‘Alliance for Peace and Freedom’ (APF) is entirely devoid of substance and manifestly unfounded.

| — | In addition, the defendant deliberately delayed the review procedure brought against the APF for half a year and thereby itself occasioned its alleged need for a guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, the defendant deliberately delayed the review procedure brought against the APF for half a year and thereby itself occasioned its alleged need for a guarantee.

| — | Furthermore, the measures are disproportionate because the applicant is not in a position to provide guarantees and is threatened with the loss of its economic existence through the withdrawal of the financial assistance, which gives rise to a distortion of political competition. This constitutes a serious infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the measures are disproportionate because the applicant is not in a position to provide guarantees and is threatened with the loss of its economic existence through the withdrawal of the financial assistance, which gives rise to a distortion of political competition. This constitutes a serious infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

| 2. | Second plea in law: misuse of powers
  In addition, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers by the defendant. It takes the view that the defendant’s measures amount to a purely politically motivated manoeuvre designed to withdraw financial assistance from an unpopular political party, including the foundation affiliated to it, and thereby to manipulate political competition within the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: misuse of powers

In addition, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers by the defendant. It takes the view that the defendant’s measures amount to a purely politically motivated manoeuvre designed to withdraw financial assistance from an unpopular political party, including the foundation affiliated to it, and thereby to manipulate political competition within the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/41

---

Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Landesbank Baden Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-14/17)

(2017/C 063/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as the contested decisions concern the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as the contested decisions concern the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) due to a lack of sufficient reasons given for the contested decisions |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) due to a lack of sufficient reasons given for the contested decisions

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to the absence of a hearing of the applicant before the adoption of the contested decisions |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to the absence of a hearing of the applicant before the adoption of the contested decisions

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1), Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2), the first sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3), Article 16 and 20 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the multiplier of 0.556 for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) — Indicator
  The applicant claims in the context of the third plea in law that the defendant had not fully applied the IPS-Indicator with respect to it. The protection offered by an institutional protection scheme applies to all member institutions fully and equally. Discrimination between the institutions at the level of IPS-Indicators is inconsistent with the system and arbitrary. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1), Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2), the first sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3), Article 16 and 20 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the multiplier of 0.556 for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) — Indicator

The applicant claims in the context of the third plea in law that the defendant had not fully applied the IPS-Indicator with respect to it. The protection offered by an institutional protection scheme applies to all member institutions fully and equally. Discrimination between the institutions at the level of IPS-Indicators is inconsistent with the system and arbitrary.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the risk adjustment multiplier
  The applicant also relies on the fact that the Board infringed its freedom to conduct a business and the principle of proportionality, in so far as it calculated risk adjustment multipliers that are incompatible with the applicant’s risk profile which, relative to the other contributor-institutions, is better than average . |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the risk adjustment multiplier

The applicant also relies on the fact that the Board infringed its freedom to conduct a business and the principle of proportionality, in so far as it calculated risk adjustment multipliers that are incompatible with the applicant’s risk profile which, relative to the other contributor-institutions, is better than average .

---

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

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

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

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/43

---

Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)

(Case T-15/17)

(2017/C 063/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dimitrios Mitrakos (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Bakopanou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Ignacio Belasco Baquedano (Viana, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘YAMAS’ — Application for registration No 13 645 478

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 532/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, as well as the decision given by the Opposition Division which preceded the adoption of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, as well as the decision given by the Opposition Division which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition and allow that the registration of the trade mark applied for be registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition and allow that the registration of the trade mark applied for be registered;

| — | order the EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/43

---

Action brought on 13 January 2017 — APF v Parliament

(Case T-16/17)

(2017/C 063/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Number: FINS 2017 15) relating to the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the agreed maximum amount and the order that security be provided; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Number: FINS 2017 15) relating to the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the agreed maximum amount and the order that security be provided;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are essentially identical with or similar to the pleas in law set out in Case T-13/17, Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament.

---

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/44

---

Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-25/17)

(2017/C 063/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé Sur Vire, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 981 041 in respect of the word mark ‘PROTICURD’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 in Case R 247/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---