# Official Journal C 94/12 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 94 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6112 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 94

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6112 March 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 94/01 | 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

2018/C 94/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 94/02 | Case C-553/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Windfinder R & L Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-395/16, Windfinder R & L Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 2 |
| 2018/C 94/03 | Case C-570/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2017 by Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-432/16, Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO | 2 |
| 2018/C 94/04 | Case C-653/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2017 by VM Vermögens-Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 in Case T-374/15, VM Vermögens-Management v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | 3 |
| 2018/C 94/05 | Case C-654/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2017 by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-671/14, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission | 4 |
| 2018/C 94/06 | Case C-677/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2017 — M. Çoban v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen | 5 |
| 2018/C 94/07 | Case C-679/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 December 2017 — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, and Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts | 6 |
| 2018/C 94/08 | Case C-687/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2017 by Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2017 in Case T-138/15: Aanbestedingskalender BV and Others v European Commission | 7 |
| 2018/C 94/09 | Case C-689/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms MSC Flaminia v Land Niedersachsen | 7 |
| 2018/C 94/10 | Case C-692/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 8 |
| 2018/C 94/11 | Case C-706/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 December 2017 — Achema AB, Orlen Lietuva AB, Lifosa AB v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK) | 8 |
| 2018/C 94/12 | Case C-707/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru and Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu | 10 |
| 2018/C 94/13 | Case C-708/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Asenovgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2017 — EVN Bulgaria Toplofikatsia EAD v Nikolina Stefanova Dimitrovа | 10 |
| 2018/C 94/14 | Case C-725/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2017 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD v Mitko Simoneov Dimitrov | 11 |
| 2018/C 94/15 | Case C-11/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council | 12 |
| 2018/C 94/16 | Case C-21/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 11 January 2018 — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag | 13 |
| 2018/C 94/17 | Case C-36/18: Action brought on 18 January 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 14 |
| 2018/C 94/18 | Case C-59/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union | 15 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 94/19 | Case T-818/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA — Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market — Legally binding act — Limitation period — Economic nature of the ILS — Proportion of economic use of the installations — Incorrect numerical data — Request for adjustment — Determination of the updated values — Obligation to state reasons — Distortions of competition — Legitimate expectations) | 16 |
| 2018/C 94/20 | Case T-196/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of an application — Selection procedure — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Duty to provide reasons — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal) | 17 |
| 2018/C 94/21 | Case T-44/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Novartis AG v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 17 |
| 2018/C 94/22 | Case T-91/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Italy v Commission (ESF — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Calculation by extrapolation — Proportionality — Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Obligation to state reasons) | 18 |
| 2018/C 94/23 | Case T-113/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a member of the cat family jumping to the right) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 18 |
| 2018/C 94/24 | Case T-172/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2018 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission (State aid — Reduced taxes and contributions due from undertakings located in areas affected by natural disasters occurring in Italy — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Potential beneficiary as the holder of an acquired right — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations) | 19 |
| 2018/C 94/25 | Case T-367/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 20 |
| 2018/C 94/26 | Case T-561/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Galocha v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy (Civil Service — Members of contract staff — Selection procedure for the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy — Reserve lists — Irregularity of the selection procedure — Subsequent measures intended for third parties — Interest of third parties — Interest of the service) | 20 |
| 2018/C 94/27 | Case T-625/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Error in the declaration relating to the size of the undertaking — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Cessation of production of the substance — Criteria for calculation of the administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment) | 21 |
| 2018/C 94/28 | Case T-765/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 22 |
| 2018/C 94/29 | Case T-808/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE — Earlier EU word mark JOY — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 22 |
| 2018/C 94/30 | Case T-866/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 23 |
| 2018/C 94/31 | Case T-35/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark iGrill — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 24 |
| 2018/C 94/32 | Case T-69/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Fack Ju Göhte — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 24 |
| 2018/C 94/33 | Case T-715/16: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Pebagua v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Protection against invasive alien species — Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species — Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 — Adoption of a list of invasive alien species of concern to the European Union — Inclusion of the Procambarus clarkii species — No individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Manifest inadmissibility) | 25 |
| 2018/C 94/34 | Case T-762/16: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2018 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA — Request relating to documents and to the identity of an initial requestor of access to information of a registrant of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Partial refusal of access — Withdrawal of the decision refusing access — No need to adjudicate) | 26 |
| 2018/C 94/35 | Case T-157/17: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO – Novartis (ILLUMINA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ILLUMINA — Revocation of the contested decision — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 26 |
| 2018/C 94/36 | Case T-178/17: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — W&O medical esthetics GmbH v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HYALSTYLE — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Request for the hearing of witnesses — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law) | 27 |
| 2018/C 94/37 | Case T-784/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Application for interim relief — Public works contracts — Application for interim measures — Standstill period — Abnormally low bid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of the competing interests) | 28 |
| 2018/C 94/38 | Case T-820/17: Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa) | 28 |
| 2018/C 94/39 | Case T-8/18: Action brought on 11 January 2018 — easyJet Airline v Commission | 29 |
| 2018/C 94/40 | Case T-13/18: Action brought on 15 January 2018 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v EUIPO — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Crédit Mutuel) | 30 |
| 2018/C 94/41 | Case T-18/18: Action brought on 17 January 2018 — Lillelam v EUIPO — Pfaff (LITTLE LAMB) | 31 |
| 2018/C 94/42 | Case T-23/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Nova Brands v EUIPO — Natamil (Natamil) | 31 |
| 2018/C 94/43 | Case T-24/18: Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission | 32 |
| 2018/C 94/44 | Case T-28/18: Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN) | 33 |
| 2018/C 94/45 | Case T-30/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion) | 34 |
| 2018/C 94/46 | Case T-46/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council | 35 |
| 2018/C 94/47 | Case T-610/16: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO | 36 |
| 2018/C 94/48 | Case T-642/16: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla) | 36 |
| 2018/C 94/49 | Case T-181/17: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO | 36 |
| 2018/C 94/50 | Case T-281/17: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission | 36 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 94/02

Case C-553/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Windfinder R & L Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-395/16, Windfinder R & L Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

2

2018/C 94/03

Case C-570/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2017 by Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-432/16, Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO

2

2018/C 94/04

Case C-653/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2017 by VM Vermögens-Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 in Case T-374/15, VM Vermögens-Management v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

3

2018/C 94/05

Case C-654/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2017 by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-671/14, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission

4

2018/C 94/06

Case C-677/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2017 — M. Çoban v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

5

2018/C 94/07

Case C-679/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 December 2017 — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, and Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts

6

2018/C 94/08

Case C-687/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2017 by Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2017 in Case T-138/15: Aanbestedingskalender BV and Others v European Commission

7

2018/C 94/09

Case C-689/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms MSC Flaminia v Land Niedersachsen

7

2018/C 94/10

Case C-692/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

8

2018/C 94/11

Case C-706/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 December 2017 — Achema AB, Orlen Lietuva AB, Lifosa AB v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)

8

2018/C 94/12

Case C-707/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru and Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu

10

2018/C 94/13

Case C-708/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Asenovgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2017 — EVN Bulgaria Toplofikatsia EAD v Nikolina Stefanova Dimitrovа

10

2018/C 94/14

Case C-725/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2017 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD v Mitko Simoneov Dimitrov

11

2018/C 94/15

Case C-11/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council

12

2018/C 94/16

Case C-21/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 11 January 2018 — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

13

2018/C 94/17

Case C-36/18: Action brought on 18 January 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

14

2018/C 94/18

Case C-59/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

15

General Court

2018/C 94/19

Case T-818/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA — Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market — Legally binding act — Limitation period — Economic nature of the ILS — Proportion of economic use of the installations — Incorrect numerical data — Request for adjustment — Determination of the updated values — Obligation to state reasons — Distortions of competition — Legitimate expectations)

16

2018/C 94/20

Case T-196/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of an application — Selection procedure — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Duty to provide reasons — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal)

17

2018/C 94/21

Case T-44/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Novartis AG v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch)

17

2018/C 94/22

Case T-91/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Italy v Commission (ESF — Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily — Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted — Calculation by extrapolation — Proportionality — Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Obligation to state reasons)

18

2018/C 94/23

Case T-113/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a member of the cat family jumping to the right) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

18

2018/C 94/24

Case T-172/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2018 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission (State aid — Reduced taxes and contributions due from undertakings located in areas affected by natural disasters occurring in Italy — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Potential beneficiary as the holder of an acquired right — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations)

19

2018/C 94/25

Case T-367/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

20

2018/C 94/26

Case T-561/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Galocha v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy (Civil Service — Members of contract staff — Selection procedure for the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy — Reserve lists — Irregularity of the selection procedure — Subsequent measures intended for third parties — Interest of third parties — Interest of the service)

20

2018/C 94/27

Case T-625/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Error in the declaration relating to the size of the undertaking — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Cessation of production of the substance — Criteria for calculation of the administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

21

2018/C 94/28

Case T-765/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

22

2018/C 94/29

Case T-808/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE — Earlier EU word mark JOY — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

22

2018/C 94/30

Case T-866/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

23

2018/C 94/31

Case T-35/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark iGrill — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

24

2018/C 94/32

Case T-69/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Fack Ju Göhte — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

24

2018/C 94/33

Case T-715/16: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Pebagua v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Protection against invasive alien species — Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species — Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 — Adoption of a list of invasive alien species of concern to the European Union — Inclusion of the Procambarus clarkii species — No individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Manifest inadmissibility)

25

2018/C 94/34

Case T-762/16: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2018 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA — Request relating to documents and to the identity of an initial requestor of access to information of a registrant of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Partial refusal of access — Withdrawal of the decision refusing access — No need to adjudicate)

26

2018/C 94/35

Case T-157/17: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO – Novartis (ILLUMINA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ILLUMINA — Revocation of the contested decision — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

26

2018/C 94/36

Case T-178/17: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — W&O medical esthetics GmbH v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HYALSTYLE — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Request for the hearing of witnesses — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

27

2018/C 94/37

Case T-784/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Application for interim relief — Public works contracts — Application for interim measures — Standstill period — Abnormally low bid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of the competing interests)

28

2018/C 94/38

Case T-820/17: Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)

28

2018/C 94/39

Case T-8/18: Action brought on 11 January 2018 — easyJet Airline v Commission

29

2018/C 94/40

Case T-13/18: Action brought on 15 January 2018 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v EUIPO — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Crédit Mutuel)

30

2018/C 94/41

Case T-18/18: Action brought on 17 January 2018 — Lillelam v EUIPO — Pfaff (LITTLE LAMB)

31

2018/C 94/42

Case T-23/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Nova Brands v EUIPO — Natamil (Natamil)

31

2018/C 94/43

Case T-24/18: Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

32

2018/C 94/44

Case T-28/18: Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)

33

2018/C 94/45

Case T-30/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion)

34

2018/C 94/46

Case T-46/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council

35

2018/C 94/47

Case T-610/16: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO

36

2018/C 94/48

Case T-642/16: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)

36

2018/C 94/49

Case T-181/17: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO

36

2018/C 94/50

Case T-281/17: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

36

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/1

---

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

(2018/C 094/01)

Last publication

OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.

Past publications

OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/2

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Windfinder R & L Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-395/16, Windfinder R & L Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-553/17 P)

(2018/C 094/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Windfinder R & L Co. KG (represented by: B. Schneider, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 24 January 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/2

---

Appeal brought on 25 September 2017 by Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-432/16, Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO

(Case C-570/17 P)

(2018/C 094/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 16 January 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/3

---

Appeal brought on 21 November 2017 by VM Vermögens-Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 in Case T-374/15, VM Vermögens-Management v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-653/17 P)

(2018/C 094/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH

Form of order sought:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 September 2017 in Case T-374/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 September 2017 in Case T-374/15;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 65(2) of the EU trade mark regulation, (1) in conjunction with the right to be heard under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This ground is based on the assertion that the General Court did not take into account the retroactive effect of the amendment of the list of services of the EU trade mark ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ which resulted from a declaration made under Article 28(8) of the EU trade mark regulation and that the contested decision also annulled the EU trade mark for the newly-added services, without examining the registrability of the EU trade mark in that respect. The General Court should therefore not have rejected as inadmissible the appellant’s claim seeking to have the contested decision altered.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in so far as the General Court rejected as inadmissible in its entirety the appellant’s claim seeking to have the contested decision altered, without ruling on the merits of the retroactive effect of the amendment of the list of services of the EU trade mark ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ resulting from a declaration under Article 28(8) of the EU trade mark regulation.

The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of the EU trade mark regulation, in so far as the General Court’s findings in regard to descriptive character were based on incorrect considerations concerning the relevant public’s perception of the designation ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ and that there is no sufficiently direct and specific link between the EU trade mark and the contested services as they are described which would allow the EU trade mark to be regarded as descriptive.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the EU trade mark regulation, in so far as the General Court justified the lack of distinctive character of the EU trade mark solely on the basis that ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ would be perceived by the relevant public as a laudatory slogan and as promotional information, without explaining why the EU trade mark could not also at the same time serve as a distinctive indication of origin.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of the EU trade mark regulation, in so far as the General Court rejected the argument that there had been an infringement of the right to be heard for the sole reason that the documents which had been submitted late in the proceedings before EUIPO were not taken into account in the assessment carried out by the Board of Appeal and the contested decision was not based on those documents, even though it is clear from the case-file that the Board of Appeal copied its decision word for word from that evidence and did not at any time accord the appellant the opportunity to comment on that evidence.

The sixth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 76(2) of the EU trade mark regulation, in so far as the contested decision is based on evidence which, in the first instance before EUIPO, was submitted out of time, with the result that the Board of Appeal, in any event, should also have regarded that evidence as having been submitted out of time. The General Court, in the judgment under appeal, incorrectly concluded in this respect that that evidence had not been taken into account by the Board of Appeal and that it had not had a conclusive bearing on the contested decision.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/4

---

Appeal brought on 22 November 2017 by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-671/14, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission

(Case C-654/17 P)

(2018/C 094/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (represented by: M. Rosenthal, G. Drauz and M. Schütte, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Freistaat Sachsen

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2017 in Case T-671/14; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2017 in Case T-671/14;

| 2. | annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission decision of 9 July 2014 in Case SA.32009 (2011/C), which is challenged in the application, in so far as it declares the amount exceeding the amount of EUR 17 million (EUR 28 257 273) of the aid applied for, in the amount of EUR 45 257 273, to be incompatible with the internal market; if and in so far as the Court of Justice should consider itself unable to deliver final judgment in that respect, referral of the case back to the General Court of the European Union is sought in the alternative; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission decision of 9 July 2014 in Case SA.32009 (2011/C), which is challenged in the application, in so far as it declares the amount exceeding the amount of EUR 17 million (EUR 28 257 273) of the aid applied for, in the amount of EUR 45 257 273, to be incompatible with the internal market; if and in so far as the Court of Justice should consider itself unable to deliver final judgment in that respect, referral of the case back to the General Court of the European Union is sought in the alternative;

| 3. | in the alternative, annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the contested Commission decision of 9 July 2014 in Case SA.32009 (2011/C), in so far as it prohibits and declares incompatible with the internal market under Article 6(2) of the General Block Exemption Regulation, in the version of 6 August 2008, the granting of any registration-free aid for the appellant’s investment projects, to the extent that that aid exceeds the amount of EUR 17 million; |
| --- | --- |

3.

in the alternative, annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the contested Commission decision of 9 July 2014 in Case SA.32009 (2011/C), in so far as it prohibits and declares incompatible with the internal market under Article 6(2) of the General Block Exemption Regulation, in the version of 6 August 2008, the granting of any registration-free aid for the appellant’s investment projects, to the extent that that aid exceeds the amount of EUR 17 million;

| 4. | order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Articles 138(1) and 184(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Articles 138(1) and 184(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

| 1. | First ground of appeal: infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU

  The judgment infringes Article 107(3) TFEU, since the General Court, in assessing the decision at issue, should, had it not erred in law, have concluded that the failure to carry out a separate examination as to whether and to what extent the granting of the aid would have the effect of distorting competition constitutes an infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
  The judgment under appeal fails to recognise that the respondent could not limit its examination to merely determining the ex-ante estimated additional costs of the project in the disadvantaged location and ‘assume’ a distortion of competition for any aid going beyond that level, completely disregarding the appellant’s specific market position. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU

The judgment infringes Article 107(3) TFEU, since the General Court, in assessing the decision at issue, should, had it not erred in law, have concluded that the failure to carry out a separate examination as to whether and to what extent the granting of the aid would have the effect of distorting competition constitutes an infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

The judgment under appeal fails to recognise that the respondent could not limit its examination to merely determining the ex-ante estimated additional costs of the project in the disadvantaged location and ‘assume’ a distortion of competition for any aid going beyond that level, completely disregarding the appellant’s specific market position.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 288 TFEU, of Articles 3 and 13(1) of the GBER 2008 and of the prohibition of discrimination

  The judgment infringes Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3 and 13(1) of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER 2008), since the General Court, had it not erred in law in its assessment, should have conferred on the respondent no renewed competence to examine aid and declare its incompatibility by decision, in so far as that aid, up to the threshold level under Article 6(2) of the GBER 2008, had already been declared substantively compatible with the internal market on the basis of higher-ranking, secondary European Union law.
  Furthermore, as a consequence of the judgment under appeal, the prohibition on receiving aid in excess of EUR 17 million, up to the threshold level of the GBER 2008, discriminates against the appellant in comparison with its competitors, since it would have been possible for any — even a dominant — competitor in a comparable situation to receive aid, up to the threshold, for a comparably high level of investment under the German Investment Allowance Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 288 TFEU, of Articles 3 and 13(1) of the GBER 2008 and of the prohibition of discrimination

The judgment infringes Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3 and 13(1) of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER 2008), since the General Court, had it not erred in law in its assessment, should have conferred on the respondent no renewed competence to examine aid and declare its incompatibility by decision, in so far as that aid, up to the threshold level under Article 6(2) of the GBER 2008, had already been declared substantively compatible with the internal market on the basis of higher-ranking, secondary European Union law.

Furthermore, as a consequence of the judgment under appeal, the prohibition on receiving aid in excess of EUR 17 million, up to the threshold level of the GBER 2008, discriminates against the appellant in comparison with its competitors, since it would have been possible for any — even a dominant — competitor in a comparable situation to receive aid, up to the threshold, for a comparably high level of investment under the German Investment Allowance Law.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2017 — M. Çoban v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-677/17)

(2018/C 094/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. Çoban

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80, (1) having regard to Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision of a Member State such as Article 4a of the Toeslagenwet (Netherlands Law on Supplementary Benefits), under which a supplementary benefit which has been awarded is withdrawn if the beneficiary moves to Turkey, even if that beneficiary left the territory of the Member State on his own initiative? Is it significant in this regard that, at the time of departure, the person concerned no longer has a right of residence under the law of the [EEC-Turkey] Association, but does hold a long-term resident’s EU residence permit? Is it significant in this regard that the person concerned has the opportunity, under national rules, to return within a year of his departure in order to regain the supplementary benefit, and that this possibility continues for as long as he holds a long-term resident’s EU residence permit?

---

(1)  Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 December 2017 — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, and Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts

(Case C-679/17)

(2018/C 094/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie; Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw

Respondent: Johannes Huijbrechts

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a situation whereby an heir inherits a forest area located outside Belgium, which is managed in a sustainable manner, and which is not exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), whereas an heir who inherits a forest area in Flanders which is managed in a sustainable manner is exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an impediment to the free movement of capital as laid down in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a situation whereby an heir inherits a forest area located outside Belgium, which is managed in a sustainable manner, and which is not exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), whereas an heir who inherits a forest area in Flanders which is managed in a sustainable manner is exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an impediment to the free movement of capital as laid down in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 2. | Does the importance of the Flemish forest area, which is at issue here within the meaning of Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from inheritance tax is limited to forest areas in Flanders which are sustainably managed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the importance of the Flemish forest area, which is at issue here within the meaning of Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from inheritance tax is limited to forest areas in Flanders which are sustainably managed?

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/7

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2017 by Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2017 in Case T-138/15: Aanbestedingskalender BV and Others v European Commission

(Case C-687/17 P)

(2018/C 094/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV (represented by: C. T. Dekker, L. Fiorilli, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellant in Case T-138/15 and, consequently: |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellant in Case T-138/15 and, consequently:

| — | annul the decision at issue, in whole or in part; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision at issue, in whole or in part; and/or

| — | in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellants in Case T-138/15 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellants in Case T-138/15 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and failed to state a proper and consistent reasoning by considering and finding that the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected and the action therefore dismissed in its entirety because the Commission was entitled to find that the activities performed by TenderNed were not economic in nature and that the measure at issue in the present case did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

The appellants claim that the economic or non-economic nature of TenderNed’s activities, especially its submission module, cannot be considered as facets of one single activity and that TenderNed’s submission module should be considered as economic in nature and as separable from public powers. The appellants claim that the General Court did not comply with the Court of Justice’s case-law regarding the test of whether an activity is economic or non-economic in nature.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-689/17)

(2018/C 094/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Question referred

Are residues from damage to a ship at sea in the form of scrap metal and fire extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues on board the ship ‘waste generated on board vehicles, trains, aeroplanes and ships’ for the purposes of Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006 (1)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-692/17)

(2018/C 094/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

For the purposes of application of the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive (1), do the terms ‘granting’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘management of credit’ encompass the assignment for consideration to a third party of the positon held by a taxable person liable for VAT in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt, recognised by a judgment and resulting from the breach of a property agency agreement, plus VAT at the rate in force on the date of payment and the default interest already accrued or which may accrue until full payment?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 December 2017 — ‘Achema’ AB, ‘Orlen Lietuva’ AB, ‘Lifosa’ AB v Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)

(Case C-706/17)

(2018/C 094/11)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants:‘Achema’ AB, ‘Orlen Lietuva’ AB, ‘Lifosa’ AB

Other party to the proceedings: Valstybinė kainų ir energetikos kontrolės komisija (VKEKK)

Questions referred

Is the legislative framework for the provision of public interest services in the electricity sector (‘PIS’) and their financing (compensation) (‘the PIS scheme’) — established in the Lithuanian Law on electricity, in the Lithuanian Law on energy from renewable sources, in the Lithuanian Law on integration of the electricity system into European electricity systems, in the Lithuanian Law implementing the Law amending and supplementing Articles 2, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20 and 21 of the Law on energy from renewable sources and in the legal measures implementing those laws, including the Procedure for the provision of public interest services in the electricity sector, approved by Resolution No 916 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 18 July 2012, the Procedure for the administration of monies for public interest services in the electricity sector, approved by Resolution No 1157 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 19 September 2012, and so forth — as in force in 2014, or part thereof, to be regarded as State aid (a State aid scheme) for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, including the following questions:

| — | in circumstances such as those in the present case, is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that PIS monies are, or are not, to be regarded as State resources? |
| --- | --- |

—

in circumstances such as those in the present case, is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that PIS monies are, or are not, to be regarded as State resources?

| — | is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a case where an obligation is imposed on network operators (undertakings) to purchase electricity from electricity producers at a fixed price (rate) and/or to balance the electricity, and the losses sustained by network operators on account of that obligation are compensated with monies which are possibly attributable to State resources, is not to be regarded as aid granted to electricity producers through State resources? |
| --- | --- |

—

is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a case where an obligation is imposed on network operators (undertakings) to purchase electricity from electricity producers at a fixed price (rate) and/or to balance the electricity, and the losses sustained by network operators on account of that obligation are compensated with monies which are possibly attributable to State resources, is not to be regarded as aid granted to electricity producers through State resources?

| — | is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the following support is, or is not, to be regarded as selective and/or capable of affecting trade between Member States: support granted to an undertaking which implements a project of strategic importance, such as ‘NordBalt’; support granted to undertakings which are entrusted with ensuring the security of electricity supply for a given period; support to compensate for the losses reflecting market conditions and actually sustained by persons, such as the developers of solar photovoltaic plants who are at issue, by reason of the State’s refusal to fulfil commitments entered into (by reason of national regulatory changes); support granted to undertakings (network operators) with the objective of compensating for actual losses sustained in their discharging of the obligation to purchase electricity at a fixed price from electricity producers providing PIS and to balance the electricity? |
| --- | --- |

—

is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the following support is, or is not, to be regarded as selective and/or capable of affecting trade between Member States: support granted to an undertaking which implements a project of strategic importance, such as ‘NordBalt’; support granted to undertakings which are entrusted with ensuring the security of electricity supply for a given period; support to compensate for the losses reflecting market conditions and actually sustained by persons, such as the developers of solar photovoltaic plants who are at issue, by reason of the State’s refusal to fulfil commitments entered into (by reason of national regulatory changes); support granted to undertakings (network operators) with the objective of compensating for actual losses sustained in their discharging of the obligation to purchase electricity at a fixed price from electricity producers providing PIS and to balance the electricity?

| — | is Article 107(1) TFEU, applied in conjunction with Article 106(2) TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the PIS scheme in question (or part thereof) is, or is not, to be regarded as satisfying the criteria laid down in paragraphs 88 to 93 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 July 2003 in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg (C-280/00)? |
| --- | --- |

—

is Article 107(1) TFEU, applied in conjunction with Article 106(2) TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the PIS scheme in question (or part thereof) is, or is not, to be regarded as satisfying the criteria laid down in paragraphs 88 to 93 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 24 July 2003 in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg (C-280/00)?

| — | is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the PIS scheme (or part thereof) is, or is not, to be regarded as distorting or threatening to distort competition? |
| --- | --- |

—

is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the PIS scheme (or part thereof) is, or is not, to be regarded as distorting or threatening to distort competition?

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Svilengrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Pinzaru and Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu

(Case C-707/17)

(2018/C 094/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Svilengrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Daniela Pinzaru, Robert-Andrei Cirstinoiu

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

| 1.1. | Are Article 65(3) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which set out the penalties of the type and intensity of those contained in Paragraph 251(1) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code) which, for a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, provides, as alternative options, either for a prison sentence of a maximum of six years, which need not be suspended even in the event of a first offence, or for a fine which represents twice the value of the goods involved in the criminal offence, and in addition provides, cumulatively, in Paragraph 251(2) of that code, as a supplementary penalty, for the confiscation, in favour of the State, of the entirety of the undeclared amounts of money, without it being necessary to determine the origin or intended purpose of those sums, because that provision of national law relates to a combination of penalties which go beyond that which is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by that regulation, contrary to the principle that the penalty must be proportionate to the criminal offence, enshrined in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and constituting a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Are Article 65(3) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which set out the penalties of the type and intensity of those contained in Paragraph 251(1) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code) which, for a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, provides, as alternative options, either for a prison sentence of a maximum of six years, which need not be suspended even in the event of a first offence, or for a fine which represents twice the value of the goods involved in the criminal offence, and in addition provides, cumulatively, in Paragraph 251(2) of that code, as a supplementary penalty, for the confiscation, in favour of the State, of the entirety of the undeclared amounts of money, without it being necessary to determine the origin or intended purpose of those sums, because that provision of national law relates to a combination of penalties which go beyond that which is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by that regulation, contrary to the principle that the penalty must be proportionate to the criminal offence, enshrined in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and constituting a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital?

| 1.2. | Must those provisions of EU law, namely, Article 65(3) TFEU, Articles 3 and 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005 and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, in particular Paragraph 251(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code), which, in addition to the principal penalties penalising a failure to comply with the obligation to declare under Article 3 of Regulation No 1889/2005, lays down a complementary penalty involving the confiscation, in favour of the State, of the entirety of the undeclared amounts of money, regardless of the origin or intended purpose of that sum of money? |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Must those provisions of EU law, namely, Article 65(3) TFEU, Articles 3 and 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005 and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, in particular Paragraph 251(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code), which, in addition to the principal penalties penalising a failure to comply with the obligation to declare under Article 3 of Regulation No 1889/2005, lays down a complementary penalty involving the confiscation, in favour of the State, of the entirety of the undeclared amounts of money, regardless of the origin or intended purpose of that sum of money?

| 1.3. | Must Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, namely Paragraph 251(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code), which is a confiscation measure that penalises a simple failure to comply with the obligation to declare, fails to respect the strict balance between the general interest and the requirement of the protection of the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

Must Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, namely Paragraph 251(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code), which is a confiscation measure that penalises a simple failure to comply with the obligation to declare, fails to respect the strict balance between the general interest and the requirement of the protection of the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 1).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Asenovgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 December 2017 — EVN Bulgaria Toplofikatsia EAD v Nikolina Stefanova Dimitrovа

(Case C-708/17)

(2018/C 094/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Asenovgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EVN Bulgaria Toplofikatsia EAD

Defendant: Nikolina Stefanova Dimitrovа

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 preclude the possibility of the district heating supplier demanding consideration for the consumed thermal energy released by the system supplied with district heating of a building in co-ownership in proportion to the heatable volume of the apartments according to the floor plan, without taking account of the quantity of thermal energy actually released in the individual apartment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/32/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 preclude the possibility of the district heating supplier demanding consideration for the consumed thermal energy released by the system supplied with district heating of a building in co-ownership in proportion to the heatable volume of the apartments according to the floor plan, without taking account of the quantity of thermal energy actually released in the individual apartment?

| 2. | Is a national provision that obliges consumers who are owners of apartments in buildings subject to the provisions on co-ownership to provide consideration for the thermal energy that is not used but is supplied by the building’s system provided with district heating, if they have ceased the use of the thermal energy by removing the radiators in their apartments or as a result of employees of the district heating supplier having rendered the radiator technically incapable of releasing heat at their request, compatible with Article 27 of Directive 2011/83/EU? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a national provision that obliges consumers who are owners of apartments in buildings subject to the provisions on co-ownership to provide consideration for the thermal energy that is not used but is supplied by the building’s system provided with district heating, if they have ceased the use of the thermal energy by removing the radiators in their apartments or as a result of employees of the district heating supplier having rendered the radiator technically incapable of releasing heat at their request, compatible with Article 27 of Directive 2011/83/EU? (2)

| 3. | Does such a national provision give rise to an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does such a national provision give rise to an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2006 L 114, p 64.

(2)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2011 L 304, p 64.

(3)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2017 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD v Mitko Simoneov Dimitrov

(Case C-725/17)

(2018/C 094/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD

Defendant: Mitko Simoneov Dimitrov

Questions referred

| 1. | Does [Directive 2011/83/EU], (1) which excludes from its scope the rules of conventional contract law on the conclusion of contracts, also exclude legislation governing this extremely atypical, legally prescribed structure for the existence of a contractual relationship? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does [Directive 2011/83/EU], (1) which excludes from its scope the rules of conventional contract law on the conclusion of contracts, also exclude legislation governing this extremely atypical, legally prescribed structure for the existence of a contractual relationship?

| 2. | If the directive does not exclude specific legislation in that situation, does that contract fall within the scope of Article 5 of the directive or of a different instrument? In the event that it is a contract or in the event that it is not, is the directive applicable in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the directive does not exclude specific legislation in that situation, does that contract fall within the scope of Article 5 of the directive or of a different instrument? In the event that it is a contract or in the event that it is not, is the directive applicable in the present case?

| 3. | Are such de facto contracts covered by the directive, irrespective of the time they arise, or does the directive apply only to newly acquired or, even more restrictively, to newly built apartments (that is to say, user-installations requesting connection to the district heating network)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are such de facto contracts covered by the directive, irrespective of the time they arise, or does the directive apply only to newly acquired or, even more restrictively, to newly built apartments (that is to say, user-installations requesting connection to the district heating network)?

| 4. | If the directive is applicable: does the national legislation infringe Article 5(1)(f), read in conjunction with paragraph 2, which provide for the right to terminate the legal relationship (or the fundamental possibility of doing so)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the directive is applicable: does the national legislation infringe Article 5(1)(f), read in conjunction with paragraph 2, which provide for the right to terminate the legal relationship (or the fundamental possibility of doing so)?

| 5. | Thus, in the event that a contract is concluded, is a particular form required, and what information must be provided to the consumer (understood to be the individual owner of an apartment and not a community of separate apartment owners)? Does failure to provide timely and accessible information affect the existence of a legal relationship? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Thus, in the event that a contract is concluded, is a particular form required, and what information must be provided to the consumer (understood to be the individual owner of an apartment and not a community of separate apartment owners)? Does failure to provide timely and accessible information affect the existence of a legal relationship?

| 6. | In order to be a party to such a legal relationship, is a specific request necessary, thus a formally expressed intention of the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In order to be a party to such a legal relationship, is a specific request necessary, thus a formally expressed intention of the consumer?

| 7. | If a contract, be it formal or informal, is concluded, does heating of the common parts of the building (in particular the stairwells) form part of the subject matter of the contract and has the consumer ordered a service in that area of the building, if no request has been expressly made for that service by that consumer or even by the whole building in co-ownership (for example, when radiators have been removed — as appears to have happened in a great number of cases — the experts not mentioning that there are heating appliances in the common parts of the building)? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If a contract, be it formal or informal, is concluded, does heating of the common parts of the building (in particular the stairwells) form part of the subject matter of the contract and has the consumer ordered a service in that area of the building, if no request has been expressly made for that service by that consumer or even by the whole building in co-ownership (for example, when radiators have been removed — as appears to have happened in a great number of cases — the experts not mentioning that there are heating appliances in the common parts of the building)?

| 8. | In the light of the above, is the fact that the heating supply is terminated in a private apartment relevant (or does it make a difference) as regards the owner’s status as a consumer who has requested heating of the common parts of the building? |
| --- | --- |

8.

In the light of the above, is the fact that the heating supply is terminated in a private apartment relevant (or does it make a difference) as regards the owner’s status as a consumer who has requested heating of the common parts of the building?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Text with EEA relevance

OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/12

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council

(Case C-11/18 P)

(2018/C 094/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (represented by: M. Phelippeau, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15.

The appellant requests the Court to grant the relief sought in the proceedings before the General Court below namely:

| — | to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 (1); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 (1); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 (2);

| — | to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 (3), and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 (4); |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 (3), and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 (4);

| — | to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 (5); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 (6), |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 (5); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 (6),

in so far as those measures concern the Appellant; and to order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal and the application for annulment in the statement of modification.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds.

First, he claims that the General Court was wrong to consider that the Council of the European Union had identified actual and specific reasons justifying the imposition of restrictive measures on him and that the General Court was wrong to describe the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office as being a ‘high judicial authority’.

Second, he submits that the General Court was wrong to consider that listing criterion contained in the acts at issue corresponded to the objectives of the CFSP.

Third, he maintains that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the restrictive measure was not constitutive of an infringement of the rights to property.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62 p. 25)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1)

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76);

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1);

(5)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34);

(6)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1)

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 11 January 2018 — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

(Case C-21/18)

(2018/C 094/16)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin

Defendant: Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (1) of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, etc., to be interpreted as meaning that Article 7(1)(e)(iii), in its new wording, is applicable to a court’s assessment of invalidity (under Article 52(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Regulation) that is made after the entry into force of the amendment, namely after 23 March 2016, even if the action concerns a declaration of invalidity where the action was brought before that date and therefore concerns a trade mark registered before that date? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (1) of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, etc., to be interpreted as meaning that Article 7(1)(e)(iii), in its new wording, is applicable to a court’s assessment of invalidity (under Article 52(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Regulation) that is made after the entry into force of the amendment, namely after 23 March 2016, even if the action concerns a declaration of invalidity where the action was brought before that date and therefore concerns a trade mark registered before that date?

| 2. | Is Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Regulation, in the version applicable, to be interpreted as meaning that its scope covers a sign which consists of the two-dimensional representation of a two-dimensional product, for example fabric decorated with the sign in question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Regulation, in the version applicable, to be interpreted as meaning that its scope covers a sign which consists of the two-dimensional representation of a two-dimensional product, for example fabric decorated with the sign in question?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, according to what principles is the wording ‘signs which consist exclusively of the shape (or another characteristic) which gives substantial value to the goods’ in Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Regulation to be interpreted, in a situation where the registration covers a wide range of classes of goods and goods and the sign may be affixed in different ways to the goods? Is the assessment to be made in accordance with more objective/general criteria, for example with the starting point of how the mark appears and how it is possible to affix it to different goods, that is to say without regard to the manner in which the trade mark proprietor may de facto have affixed or may intend to affix the sign to various goods? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, according to what principles is the wording ‘signs which consist exclusively of the shape (or another characteristic) which gives substantial value to the goods’ in Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Regulation to be interpreted, in a situation where the registration covers a wide range of classes of goods and goods and the sign may be affixed in different ways to the goods? Is the assessment to be made in accordance with more objective/general criteria, for example with the starting point of how the mark appears and how it is possible to affix it to different goods, that is to say without regard to the manner in which the trade mark proprietor may de facto have affixed or may intend to affix the sign to various goods?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 341, p. 21.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/14

---

Action brought on 18 January 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-36/18)

(2018/C 094/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Τriantaphillou, M. Morales Puerta and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/89/ΕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (1) or, in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/89/ΕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (1) or, in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive,

| — | impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty payment of EUR 31 416 per day, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty payment of EUR 31 416 per day, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court,

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | Under Article 15 of the directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning Member States are to transpose the directive into domestic law by 18 September 2016 and to inform the Commission thereof. The Commission has not, however, received any reply either to its letter of formal notice or to the reasoned opinion that it sent to the Hellenic Republic and seeks, consequently, recognition of the existence of the infringement by reason of a failure to transpose a binding directive in accordance with Article 258 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Under Article 15 of the directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning Member States are to transpose the directive into domestic law by 18 September 2016 and to inform the Commission thereof. The Commission has not, however, received any reply either to its letter of formal notice or to the reasoned opinion that it sent to the Hellenic Republic and seeks, consequently, recognition of the existence of the infringement by reason of a failure to transpose a binding directive in accordance with Article 258 TFEU.

| — | To establish a procedure whereby the authorities of each Member State assess and organise human activities in the marine regions within their jurisdiction in order to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives, the Commission, in accordance with its binding practice concerning the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU, (2) seeks at the same time the imposition of a penalty payment amounting to EUR 31 416 per day, taking into consideration in particular the seriousness of the infringement (see the objectives of the directive which relate to the common fisheries policy, maritime shipping, the conservation and protection of the environment and energy, but also the impact on the economic operators concerned). |
| --- | --- |

—

To establish a procedure whereby the authorities of each Member State assess and organise human activities in the marine regions within their jurisdiction in order to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives, the Commission, in accordance with its binding practice concerning the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU, (2) seeks at the same time the imposition of a penalty payment amounting to EUR 31 416 per day, taking into consideration in particular the seriousness of the infringement (see the objectives of the directive which relate to the common fisheries policy, maritime shipping, the conservation and protection of the environment and energy, but also the impact on the economic operators concerned).

---

(1)  
  OJ 2014, L 25, p. 135.

(2)  
  OJ 2011, C 12, p. 1.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/15

---

Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

(Case C-59/18)

(2018/C 094/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, S. Fiorentino and C. Colelli, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

| — | annul the decision adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency, and, consequently, allocate that seat to the city of Milan. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency, and, consequently, allocate that seat to the city of Milan.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government has brought an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the decision, adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that the new seat of the European Medicines Agency would be Amsterdam. In support of its action the Italian Government has put forward a single plea in law, alleging misuse of powers through failure to investigate adequately and distortion of facts, since there is inconsistency between the factual situation of the location of Amsterdam and the information provided in the bid.

---

General Court

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission

(Case T-818/14) (1)

((State aid - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market - Legally binding act - Limitation period - Economic nature of the ILS - Proportion of economic use of the installations - Incorrect numerical data - Request for adjustment - Determination of the updated values - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition - Legitimate expectations))

(2018/C 094/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, S. Golinvaux, H. Tacheny and J. Delarue, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Brussels Airport Company SA (represented by: T. Janssens, F. Hoseinian and T. Oeyen, lawyers) and Brussels Airlines SA/NV (represented initially by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, D. Vallindas and D. Dauchez, and subsequently by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 concerning measures SA. 14093 (C76/2002) implemented by Belgium in favour of BSCA and Ryanair.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA);

| 3. | Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA

(Case T-196/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of an application - Selection procedure - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Duty to provide reasons - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal))

(2018/C 094/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: C. Manolopoulos, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015, Gyarmathy v FRA (F 97/13, EU:F:2015:7), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Novartis AG v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch)

(Case T-44/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU trade mark representing a transdermal patch - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented: initially by M.R. Douglas, and subsequently by A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, J. Bogatz, and C. Lindenthal, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 (Case R 2342/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between SK Chemicals and Novartis.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-91/16) (1)

((ESF - Operational programme for objective No 1 for the Region of Sicily - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted - Calculation by extrapolation - Proportionality - Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 094/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015 concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund (ESF) [contribution] for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (CCI 1999IT 161PO011).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a member of the cat family jumping to the right)

(Case T-113/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arctic Cat Inc. (Thief River Falls, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Slazengers Ltd (Burnham, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 2953/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Slazengers and Arctic Cat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arctic Cat Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arctic Cat Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2018 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission

(Case T-172/16) (1)

((State aid - Reduced taxes and contributions due from undertakings located in areas affected by natural disasters occurring in Italy - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Potential beneficiary as the holder of an acquired right - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations))

(2018/C 094/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni Srl (Catania, Italy) (represented by: E. Castorina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Principally, an application seeking ‘an EU-law-compatible interpretation’ of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015 on State aid measures SA.33083 (12/C) (ex 12/NN) implemented by Italy providing for reduced taxes and contributions linked to natural disasters (all sectors except agriculture) and SA.35083 (12/C) (ex 12/NN), implemented by Italy providing for reduced taxes and contributions linked to the earthquake in Abruzzo in 2009 (all sectors except agriculture) (OJ 2016 L 43, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13. 6. 2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO

(Case T-367/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE - Earlier EU trade mark HOLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz and D. Oerter, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and Mr Brunner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gerd Brunner to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gerd Brunner to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Galocha v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy

(Case T-561/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Members of contract staff - Selection procedure for the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy - Reserve lists - Irregularity of the selection procedure - Subsequent measures intended for third parties - Interest of third parties - Interest of the service))

(2018/C 094/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Yosu Galocha (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Asmaryan Degtyareva and R-B. Dan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: R. Hanak, G. Poszler and S. Bernal Blanco, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, in particular, the annulment of the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001, the annulment of those reserve lists and the annulment of the decisions to appoint the successful candidates included in those lists.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the name of Mr Yosu Galocha in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the name of Mr Yosu Galocha in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

| 2. | Annuls the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

| 3. | Annuls the decisions of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to appoint the successful candidates included in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls the decisions of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to appoint the successful candidates included in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

| 4. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 5. | Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-117/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA

(Case T-625/16) (1)

((REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Error in the declaration relating to the size of the undertaking - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Cessation of production of the substance - Criteria for calculation of the administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 094/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. (Grajewo, Poland) (represented by: T. Dobrzyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by: E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by: J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, firstly, of ECHA Decision SME(2016) 2851 of 23 June 2016, finding that the applicant did not fulfil the conditions for the fee reduction provided for in respect of medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it; secondly, of the invoices Nos 10058238 and 10058239 issued by ECHA and annexed to Decision SME(2016) 2851; and, thirdly, of ECHA’s Management Board Decision MB/43/2014 of 4 June 2015 amending Decision MB/D/29/2010, as amended by Decision MB/21/2012 on the classification of services for which charges are levied.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)

(Case T-765/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)

(Case T-808/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE - Earlier EU word mark JOY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Emboga, SA (Petrel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 (Case R 235/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jean Patou Worldwide and Emboga.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)

(Case T-866/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 (Case R 206/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign billiger-mietwagen.de as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SilverTours GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SilverTours GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

(Case T-35/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark iGrill - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2016 (Case R 538/2016–2), relating to the international registration designating the European Union of the word mark iGrill.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Weber-Stephen Products LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Weber-Stephen Products LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

(Case T-69/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Fack Ju Göhte - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 094/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2205/2015–5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Fack Ju Göhte as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Constantin Film Produktion GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Constantin Film Produktion GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/25

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Pebagua v Commission

(Case T-715/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Environment - Protection against invasive alien species - Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species - Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 - Adoption of a list of invasive alien species of concern to the European Union - Inclusion of the Procambarus clarkii species - No individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 094/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) (Isla Mayor, Spain) (represented by: A. Uceda Sosa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 4).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/26

---

Order of the General Court of 15 January 2018 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA

(Case T-762/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the ECHA - Request relating to documents and to the identity of an initial requestor of access to information of a registrant of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Partial refusal of access - Withdrawal of the decision refusing access - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 094/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Scheidmann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and E. Maurage, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and by G. Gilmore, Barrister)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ATD/52/2016 of the ECHA of 26 September 2016, notified to the applicants on 28 September 2016, which granted partial access to the requested documents regarding an earlier application for access to documents held by the ECHA.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

| 3. | The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) shall, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay those incurred by ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) shall, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay those incurred by ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG.

| 4. | The EMA shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EMA shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/26

---

Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO – Novartis (ILLUMINA)

(Case T-157/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ILLUMINA - Revocation of the contested decision - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 094/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2017 (Case R 1187/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Cristalfarma.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The request made by Cristalfarma Srl for a stay of the proceedings is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The request made by Cristalfarma Srl for a stay of the proceedings is rejected;

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

| 3. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Cristalfarma; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Cristalfarma;

| 4. | Novartis AG shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Novartis AG shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/27

---

Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — W&O medical esthetics GmbH v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

(Case T-178/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark HYALSTYLE - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Request for the hearing of witnesses - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law))

(2018/C 094/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: W&O medical esthetics GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: A. Finkentey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 (Case R 872/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between W&O medical esthetics and Fidia farmaceutici.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | W&O medical esthetics GmbH shall bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Fidia farmaceutici SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

W&O medical esthetics GmbH shall bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Fidia farmaceutici SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-784/17 R)

((Application for interim relief - Public works contracts - Application for interim measures - Standstill period - Abnormally low bid - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing of the competing interests))

(2018/C 094/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a suspension of execution of the Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject the applicant’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for the Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to produce various documents.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Execution of the European Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject Strabag Belgium’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) is suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Execution of the European Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject Strabag Belgium’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) is suspended.

| 2. | The remainder of the application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the application is dismissed.

| 3. | The order of 6 December 2017, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R), is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The order of 6 December 2017, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R), is cancelled.

| 4. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/28

---

Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)

(Case T-820/17)

(2018/C 094/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alimentos Friorizados, SA (Barberá del Vallés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Alfrisa’ — Application for registration No 14 899 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 in Case R 956/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul EUIPO’s decisions dismissing the opposition and the proceedings brought by the applicant in relation to EU Mark No 14 899 223, ‘Alfrisa’, for goods and services in classes 29 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul EUIPO’s decisions dismissing the opposition and the proceedings brought by the applicant in relation to EU Mark No 14 899 223, ‘Alfrisa’, for goods and services in classes 29 and 35;

| — | order the applicant for the trade mark at issue to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 85 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and rule 94 of the Regulation implementing the Community Trade Mark Regulation |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant for the trade mark at issue to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 85 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and rule 94 of the Regulation implementing the Community Trade Mark Regulation

Pleas in law

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

—

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

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/29

---

Action brought on 11 January 2018 — easyJet Airline v Commission

(Case T-8/18)

(2018/C 094/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Willis, Solicitor, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) in its entirety and, in any event, so far as the alleged unlawful State aid given to the applicant is concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) in its entirety and, in any event, so far as the alleged unlawful State aid given to the applicant is concerned; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia, and thus that the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia, and thus that the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the funding provided to the applicant by the airport operators conferred an undue advantage on the applicant and in particular that the Commission applied the market economy operator principle incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the funding provided to the applicant by the airport operators conferred an undue advantage on the applicant and in particular that the Commission applied the market economy operator principle incorrectly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the financing of the airlines concerned distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the financing of the airlines concerned distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the alleged aid that the Commission found was given to the applicant could not be approved as compatible with the internal market under one of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the alleged aid that the Commission found was given to the applicant could not be approved as compatible with the internal market under one of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(3) TFEU.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law insofar as the Commission breached the principle of legitimate expectations, as the applicant had a legitimate expectation that its arrangements with the airport operators did not involve State aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law insofar as the Commission breached the principle of legitimate expectations, as the applicant had a legitimate expectation that its arrangements with the airport operators did not involve State aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by insufficient reasoning as regards both: (a) the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia and that therefore the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State; and (b) the application of the market economy operator principle with a view to establishing that the applicant received an undue advantage. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by insufficient reasoning as regards both: (a) the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia and that therefore the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State; and (b) the application of the market economy operator principle with a view to establishing that the applicant received an undue advantage.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/30

---

Action brought on 15 January 2018 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v EUIPO — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Crédit Mutuel)

(Case T-13/18)

(2018/C 094/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: A. Casalonga, F. Codevelle and C. Bercial Arias, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Crédit Mutuel’ — European Union trade mark No 9 943 135

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 1724/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it concedes that the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ has a distinctive character through use for certain goods in Classes 9, 35 and 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it concedes that the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ has a distinctive character through use for certain goods in Classes 9, 35 and 36;

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it recognises the distinctive character of the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ for certain goods in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 42 and 45; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it recognises the distinctive character of the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ for certain goods in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 42 and 45;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), read in combination with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3), of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), read in combination with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3), of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/31

---

Action brought on 17 January 2018 — Lillelam v EUIPO — Pfaff (LITTLE LAMB)

(Case T-18/18)

(2018/C 094/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lillelam A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nick Pfaff (Ammanford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITTLE LAMB’ — EU trade mark No 8 121 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 in Case R 536/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | revoke the EU Trademark No 8 121 675 ‘LITTLE LAMB’ for at least ‘Clothing’ and ‘Accessories for Clothing’ |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the EU Trademark No 8 121 675 ‘LITTLE LAMB’ for at least ‘Clothing’ and ‘Accessories for Clothing’

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/31

---

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Nova Brands v EUIPO — Natamil (Natamil)

(Case T-23/18)

(2018/C 094/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nova Brands SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘natamil’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 235 069

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 in Case R 1910/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU concerning the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU concerning the obligation to state reasons.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/32

---

Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-24/18)

(2018/C 094/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: adidas International Trading BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Gabor Footwear GmbH (Rosenheim, Germany), Gabor Shoes AG (Rosenheim), HR Online GmbH (Osnabrück, Germany), Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands), Timberland Europe BV (Almelo, Netherlands), Wolverine Europe BV (Amsterdam,), Wolverine Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1982 of 31 October 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co. Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co., Ltd, implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 285, p. 14); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1982 of 31 October 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co. Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co., Ltd, implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 285, p. 14); and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by the contested regulation:






  (i) | lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and the basic Regulation (1) and infringes Article 9(4) of the basis Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by the contested regulation:

(i)

lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and the basic Regulation (1) and infringes Article 9(4) of the basis Regulation;

| (ii) | is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the applicants are concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the applicants are concerned; and

| (iii) | is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the European Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the European Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment of the applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment of the applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the applicants’ suppliers to impose a retroactive anti-dumping duty and violated the principle of non-discrimination; and |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the applicants’ suppliers to impose a retroactive anti-dumping duty and violated the principle of non-discrimination; and

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation as well as with the obligation to provide reasons as mandated by Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation as well as with the obligation to provide reasons as mandated by Article 296 TFEU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/33

---

Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)

(Case T-28/18)

(2018/C 094/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AC Milan SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AC MILAN’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 182 615

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2017 in Case R 356/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the EUTM application for the contested services; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the EUTM application for the contested services; and

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

—

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

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/34

---

Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion)

(Case T-30/18)

(2018/C 094/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 371 591-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in Case R 1017/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision declaring the appeal inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision declaring the appeal inadmissible;

| — | order the defendant to deal with the appeal and give a ruling thereon; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to deal with the appeal and give a ruling thereon;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Error in law for the purpose of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 65 of Regulation No 2245/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in law for the purpose of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 65 of Regulation No 2245/2002;

| — | Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard;

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/35

---

Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council

(Case T-46/18)

(2018/C 094/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Comune di Milano (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone and M. Condinanzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Council decision of 20 November 2017 adopted in the margins of the 3579th meeting of the Council in its General Affairs formation, regarding the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’), published by means of a press release containing the report (Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)), Presse 65, provisional version, in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Council decision of 20 November 2017 adopted in the margins of the 3579th meeting of the Council in its General Affairs formation, regarding the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’), published by means of a press release containing the report (Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)), Presse 65, provisional version, in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers.






  — | The applicant claims in this respect that the objective pursued by the Council by means of the selection procedure was to identify the best offer for the relocation of the seat of the EMA in the light of pre-established selection criteria. By contrast, choosing the new seat of the EMA by drawing lots without any preliminary investigations being carried out is at variance with the objective, established while the procedural rules were being set, of selecting the best offer through a transparent decision-making process on the basis of technical assessments and specific predetermined criteria, and made it impossible for the lack of equivalence between the two applications of Milan and Amsterdam to be verified. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers.

—

The applicant claims in this respect that the objective pursued by the Council by means of the selection procedure was to identify the best offer for the relocation of the seat of the EMA in the light of pre-established selection criteria. By contrast, choosing the new seat of the EMA by drawing lots without any preliminary investigations being carried out is at variance with the objective, established while the procedural rules were being set, of selecting the best offer through a transparent decision-making process on the basis of technical assessments and specific predetermined criteria, and made it impossible for the lack of equivalence between the two applications of Milan and Amsterdam to be verified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration and transparency.






  — | The applicant claims in this respect that the contested decision is unlawful inasmuch as it is the outcome of a decision-making process that was characterised by (i) its lack of formal structure and methods designed to guarantee the necessary transparency, and (ii) its failure to take adequate consideration of the factors relevant to the assessment at issue. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration and transparency.

—

The applicant claims in this respect that the contested decision is unlawful inasmuch as it is the outcome of a decision-making process that was characterised by (i) its lack of formal structure and methods designed to guarantee the necessary transparency, and (ii) its failure to take adequate consideration of the factors relevant to the assessment at issue.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council decision of 1 November 2009 on the adoption of its internal rules as well as of its rules of procedure of 31 October 2017.






  — | The applicant claims in this respect that the manner in which the voting was carried out and the result of the Decision of 20 November 2017 also constitute grounds for the unlawfulness of that decision, since they infringe specific rules which the Council ought to have respected. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council decision of 1 November 2009 on the adoption of its internal rules as well as of its rules of procedure of 31 October 2017.

—

The applicant claims in this respect that the manner in which the voting was carried out and the result of the Decision of 20 November 2017 also constitute grounds for the unlawfulness of that decision, since they infringe specific rules which the Council ought to have respected.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO

(Case T-610/16) (1)

(2018/C 094/47)

Language of the case: Finnish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)

(Case T-642/16) (1)

(2018/C 094/48)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO

(Case T-181/17) (1)

(2018/C 094/49)

Language of the case: Finnish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-281/17) (1)

(2018/C 094/50)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---