# Official Journal C 191/30 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 191 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5930 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 191

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5930 May 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 191/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 191/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2016/C 191/02 | Case C-328/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2015 — Andreea Corina Târșia v Statul român, Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării | 2 |
| 2016/C 191/03 | Case C-440/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) | 2 |
| 2016/C 191/04 | Case C-487/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM | 3 |
| 2016/C 191/05 | Case C-537/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński | 3 |
| 2016/C 191/06 | Case C-653/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 3 |
| 2016/C 191/07 | Case C-53/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council | 4 |
| 2016/C 191/08 | Case C-57/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2016 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2015 in joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: ClientEarth v European Commission | 5 |
| 2016/C 191/09 | Case C-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2016 by Comercializadora Eloro, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Case T-354/14 Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (Zumex) | 6 |
| 2016/C 191/10 | Case C-111/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others | 8 |
| 2016/C 191/11 | Case C-122/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission | 9 |
| 2016/C 191/12 | Case C-123/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2016 by Orange Polska SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-486/11: Orange Polska SA v European Commission | 10 |
| 2016/C 191/13 | Case C-125/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina | 11 |
| 2016/C 191/14 | Case C-133/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2016 — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA | 12 |
| 2016/C 191/15 | Case C-141/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2016 — Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli | 12 |
| 2016/C 191/16 | Case C-151/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos | 13 |
| 2016/C 191/17 | Case C-152/16: Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 13 |
| 2016/C 191/18 | Case C-154/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 March 2016 — VAS Latvijas dzelzceļš v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 14 |
| 2016/C 191/19 | Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga v Konkurences padome | 15 |
| 2016/C 191/20 | Case C-164/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd | 16 |
| 2016/C 191/21 | Case C-165/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 17 |
| 2016/C 191/22 | Case C-168/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro v Crewlink Ltd | 18 |
| 2016/C 191/23 | Case C-169/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Ltd | 19 |
| 2016/C 191/24 | Case C-175/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry | 20 |
| 2016/C 191/25 | Case C-176/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission | 20 |
| 2016/C 191/26 | Case C-181/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2016 — Sadikou Gnandi v État belge | 21 |
| 2016/C 191/27 | Case C-187/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — European Commission v Austrian Republic | 22 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 191/28 | Case T-198/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — 100 % Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark 100 % Capri — Earlier European Union figurative mark CAPRI — Relative ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 23 |
| 2016/C 191/29 | Case T-200/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures — Obligation to state reasons — Right to property — Proportionality — Error of fact — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to life — Right to a family life — Non-contractual liability) | 23 |
| 2016/C 191/30 | Case T-326/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 24 |
| 2016/C 191/31 | Case T-613/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Industrias Tomás Morcillo v EUIPO — Aucar Trailer (Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits — Earlier European Union figurative mark POLICAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 25 |
| 2016/C 191/32 | Case T-638/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2016 Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA) (European Union trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA — Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier trademark — Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court — Power to alter decisions — Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95) | 25 |
| 2016/C 191/33 | Case T-8/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Auyantepui Corp. v EUIPO — Magda Rose (Mr Jones) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark Mr Jones — Earlier international figurative mark Jones — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 26 |
| 2016/C 191/34 | Case T-20/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI — Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2016/C 191/35 | Case T-81/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Facchinello v EUIPO — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Synthesis — Absence of genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court) | 27 |
| 2016/C 191/36 | Case T-261/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Spirig Pharma v EUIPO (Daylong) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Daylong — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 28 |
| 2016/C 191/37 | Case T-361/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Choice v EUIPO (Choice chocolate & ice cream) (European Union trade mark — Application for the European Union figurative mark Choice chocolate & ice cream — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive Character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 29 |
| 2016/C 191/38 | Case T-580/14: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission (Customs union — Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra — Fraud — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 29 |
| 2016/C 191/39 | Case T-644/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the Civil Justice programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency) | 30 |
| 2016/C 191/40 | Case T-181/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament (Public service contracts — Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services — Withdrawal of the act — No need to adjudicate) | 30 |
| 2016/C 191/41 | Case T-364/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the Civil Justice programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency) | 31 |
| 2016/C 191/42 | Case T-535/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 32 |
| 2016/C 191/43 | Case T-725/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency) | 32 |
| 2016/C 191/44 | Case T-10/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grants — Sixth and seventh framework programmes of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) — Letters requesting the repayment of part of the grants awarded — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility — Lack of urgency) | 33 |
| 2016/C 191/45 | Case T-41/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin — Halloumi or Hellim — Rejection of opposition — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 33 |
| 2016/C 191/46 | Case T-771/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent) | 34 |
| 2016/C 191/47 | Case T-117/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA) | 35 |
| 2016/C 191/48 | Case T-131/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Belgium v Commission | 36 |
| 2016/C 191/49 | Case T-132/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO) | 37 |
| 2016/C 191/50 | Case T-140/16: Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament | 37 |
| 2016/C 191/51 | Case T-141/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM | 39 |
| 2016/C 191/52 | Case T-143/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA) | 39 |
| 2016/C 191/53 | Case T-144/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA) | 40 |
| 2016/C 191/54 | Case T-146/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission | 41 |
| 2016/C 191/55 | Case T-147/16: Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Italy v Commission | 42 |
| 2016/C 191/56 | Case T-148/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission | 42 |
| 2016/C 191/57 | Case T-157/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by Ingrid Fedkte against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2015 in Case F-107/15, Fedkte v EESC | 43 |
| 2016/C 191/58 | Case T-158/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC | 44 |
| 2016/C 191/59 | Case T-833/14: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission | 45 |
| 2016/C 191/60 | Case T-834/14: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Forbruger-Kontakt v Commission | 45 |
| 2016/C 191/61 | Case T-24/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council | 45 |
| 2016/C 191/62 | Case T-285/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading v Council | 45 |
| 2016/C 191/63 | Case T-524/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council | 46 |
| 2016/C 191/64 | Case T-525/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council | 46 |
| 2016/C 191/65 | Case T-526/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — HK Intertrade v Council | 46 |
| 2016/C 191/66 | Case T-571/15: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY) | 46 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 191/67 | Case F-59/13 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Rouffaud v EEAS (Civil Service — Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment — EEAS staff — Member of the contract staff — Auxiliary member of the contract staff — Reclassification of auxiliary contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Refusal) | 47 |
| 2016/C 191/68 | Case F-41/15 DISS II: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL (Civil service — CEPOL staff — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL — Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) — Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff — Contractual consequences — Need for consent from members of staff — Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment — Legitimate expectations — Principle of sound administration) | 47 |
| 2016/C 191/69 | Case F-49/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission (Civil Service — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary Board — Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission — Change in place of employment — Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels — Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country — OLAF enquiry — Disciplinary penalty — Classification in a lower function group without downgrading — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to comply with the adversarial principle — New fact — Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure — Proportionality of the penalty — Procedural time limit) | 48 |
| 2016/C 191/70 | Case F-77/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Zink v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Administrative error meaning that no expatriation allowance was paid for a number of years — Adversely affecting act — Salary statements not reflecting a decision — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure — Absolute bar to proceedings — Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure — Application within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable time) | 49 |
| 2016/C 191/71 | Case F-94/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Staff Committee — Election of the Staff Committee members — Validity — Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations — EEAS electoral regulations — First ballot — Quorum not attained — Extension of the polling period — Supplementary extension of the polling period — Failure to organise a second ballot — Unlawfulness) | 49 |
| 2016/C 191/72 | Case F-98/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — CP v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Head of unit — Trial period — Not confirmed in the post of Head of unit — Enforcement of a judgment for annulment — Loss of opportunity) | 50 |
| 2016/C 191/73 | Case F-135/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — Beiner v Commission (Civil service — Competition — Eligibility conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Manifest error of assessment) | 51 |
| 2016/C 191/74 | Case F-10/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ v European Ombudsman | 51 |
| 2016/C 191/75 | Case F-15/16: Action brought on 15 March 2016 — ZZ v EEAS | 52 |
| 2016/C 191/76 | Case F-16/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — ZZ v EUIPO | 52 |
| 2016/C 191/77 | Case F-17/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 53 |
| 2016/C 191/78 | Case F-29/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission | 53 |
| 2016/C 191/79 | Case F-99/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 April 2016 — Chevalier v Committee of the Regions | 54 |
| 2016/C 191/80 | Case F-72/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission | 54 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 191/02

Case C-328/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2015 — Andreea Corina Târșia v Statul român, Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

2

2016/C 191/03

Case C-440/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

2

2016/C 191/04

Case C-487/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG

OHIM

3

2016/C 191/05

Case C-537/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński

3

2016/C 191/06

Case C-653/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office

Carsten Bopp

European Union Intellectual Property Office

3

2016/C 191/07

Case C-53/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council

Beul

Parliament and Council

4

2016/C 191/08

Case C-57/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2016 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2015 in joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: ClientEarth v European Commission

5

2016/C 191/09

Case C-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2016 by Comercializadora Eloro, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Case T-354/14 Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (Zumex)

Comercializadora Eloro

OHIM — Zumex Group (Zumex)

6

2016/C 191/10

Case C-111/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others

8

2016/C 191/11

Case C-122/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission

9

2016/C 191/12

Case C-123/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2016 by Orange Polska SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-486/11: Orange Polska SA v European Commission

10

2016/C 191/13

Case C-125/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

11

2016/C 191/14

Case C-133/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2016 — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA

12

2016/C 191/15

Case C-141/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2016 — Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

12

2016/C 191/16

Case C-151/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

13

2016/C 191/17

Case C-152/16: Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

13

2016/C 191/18

Case C-154/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 March 2016 — VAS Latvijas dzelzceļš v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

14

2016/C 191/19

Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga v Konkurences padome

15

2016/C 191/20

Case C-164/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

16

2016/C 191/21

Case C-165/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department

17

2016/C 191/22

Case C-168/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro v Crewlink Ltd

18

2016/C 191/23

Case C-169/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Ltd

19

2016/C 191/24

Case C-175/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry

20

2016/C 191/25

Case C-176/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission

20

2016/C 191/26

Case C-181/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2016 — Sadikou Gnandi v État belge

21

2016/C 191/27

Case C-187/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — European Commission v Austrian Republic

22

General Court

2016/C 191/28

Case T-198/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — 100 % Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark 100 % Capri — Earlier European Union figurative mark CAPRI — Relative ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

23

2016/C 191/29

Case T-200/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures — Obligation to state reasons — Right to property — Proportionality — Error of fact — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to life — Right to a family life — Non-contractual liability)

23

2016/C 191/30

Case T-326/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

24

2016/C 191/31

Case T-613/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Industrias Tomás Morcillo v EUIPO — Aucar Trailer (Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits — Earlier European Union figurative mark POLICAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

25

2016/C 191/32

Case T-638/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2016 Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA) (European Union trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA — Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier trademark — Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court — Power to alter decisions — Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

25

2016/C 191/33

Case T-8/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Auyantepui Corp. v EUIPO — Magda Rose (Mr Jones) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark Mr Jones — Earlier international figurative mark Jones — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

26

2016/C 191/34

Case T-20/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI — Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

27

2016/C 191/35

Case T-81/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Facchinello v EUIPO — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Synthesis — Absence of genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

27

2016/C 191/36

Case T-261/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Spirig Pharma v EUIPO (Daylong) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Daylong — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

28

2016/C 191/37

Case T-361/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Choice v EUIPO (Choice chocolate & ice cream) (European Union trade mark — Application for the European Union figurative mark Choice chocolate & ice cream — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive Character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

29

2016/C 191/38

Case T-580/14: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission (Customs union — Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra — Fraud — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

29

2016/C 191/39

Case T-644/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the Civil Justice programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

30

2016/C 191/40

Case T-181/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament (Public service contracts — Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services — Withdrawal of the act — No need to adjudicate)

30

2016/C 191/41

Case T-364/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the Civil Justice programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

31

2016/C 191/42

Case T-535/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

32

2016/C 191/43

Case T-725/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

32

2016/C 191/44

Case T-10/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grants — Sixth and seventh framework programmes of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) — Letters requesting the repayment of part of the grants awarded — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility — Lack of urgency)

33

2016/C 191/45

Case T-41/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin — Halloumi or Hellim — Rejection of opposition — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

33

2016/C 191/46

Case T-771/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)

34

2016/C 191/47

Case T-117/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

35

2016/C 191/48

Case T-131/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Belgium v Commission

36

2016/C 191/49

Case T-132/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)

37

2016/C 191/50

Case T-140/16: Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

37

2016/C 191/51

Case T-141/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM

39

2016/C 191/52

Case T-143/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)

39

2016/C 191/53

Case T-144/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)

40

2016/C 191/54

Case T-146/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission

41

2016/C 191/55

Case T-147/16: Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Italy v Commission

42

2016/C 191/56

Case T-148/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission

42

2016/C 191/57

Case T-157/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by Ingrid Fedkte against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2015 in Case F-107/15, Fedkte v EESC

43

2016/C 191/58

Case T-158/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC

Barnett and others

EESC

44

2016/C 191/59

Case T-833/14: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

45

2016/C 191/60

Case T-834/14: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Forbruger-Kontakt v Commission

45

2016/C 191/61

Case T-24/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council

45

2016/C 191/62

Case T-285/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading v Council

45

2016/C 191/63

Case T-524/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council

46

2016/C 191/64

Case T-525/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

46

2016/C 191/65

Case T-526/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — HK Intertrade v Council

46

2016/C 191/66

Case T-571/15: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY)

46

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 191/67

Case F-59/13 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Rouffaud v EEAS (Civil Service — Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment — EEAS staff — Member of the contract staff — Auxiliary member of the contract staff — Reclassification of auxiliary contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Refusal)

47

2016/C 191/68

Case F-41/15 DISS II: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL (Civil service — CEPOL staff — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL — Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) — Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff — Contractual consequences — Need for consent from members of staff — Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment — Legitimate expectations — Principle of sound administration)

47

2016/C 191/69

Case F-49/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission (Civil Service — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary Board — Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission — Change in place of employment — Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels — Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country — OLAF enquiry — Disciplinary penalty — Classification in a lower function group without downgrading — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to comply with the adversarial principle — New fact — Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure — Proportionality of the penalty — Procedural time limit)

48

2016/C 191/70

Case F-77/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Zink v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Administrative error meaning that no expatriation allowance was paid for a number of years — Adversely affecting act — Salary statements not reflecting a decision — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure — Absolute bar to proceedings — Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure — Application within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable time)

49

2016/C 191/71

Case F-94/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Staff Committee — Election of the Staff Committee members — Validity — Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations — EEAS electoral regulations — First ballot — Quorum not attained — Extension of the polling period — Supplementary extension of the polling period — Failure to organise a second ballot — Unlawfulness)

49

2016/C 191/72

Case F-98/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — CP v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Head of unit — Trial period — Not confirmed in the post of Head of unit — Enforcement of a judgment for annulment — Loss of opportunity)

50

2016/C 191/73

Case F-135/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — Beiner v Commission (Civil service — Competition — Eligibility conditions — Professional experience — Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition — Manifest error of assessment)

51

2016/C 191/74

Case F-10/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ v European Ombudsman

51

2016/C 191/75

Case F-15/16: Action brought on 15 March 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

52

2016/C 191/76

Case F-16/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — ZZ v EUIPO

52

2016/C 191/77

Case F-17/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

53

2016/C 191/78

Case F-29/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission

53

2016/C 191/79

Case F-99/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 April 2016 — Chevalier v Committee of the Regions

54

2016/C 191/80

Case F-72/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission

54

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/1

---

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

(2016/C 191/01)

Last publication

OJ C 175, 17.5.2016

Past publications

OJ C 165, 10.5.2016

OJ C 156, 2.5.2016

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016

OJ C 118, 4.4.2016

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2015 — Andreea Corina Târșia v Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

(Case C-328/15)

(2016/C 191/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreea Corina Târșia

Defendants: Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

By order of 14 April 2016, the Court (Sixth Chamber) declared that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 8 June 2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/2

---

Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by AgriCapital Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2015 in Case T-514/13: AgriCapital Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-440/15 P)

(2016/C 191/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: AgriCapital Corp. (represented by: P. Meyer, Rechtsanwalt, M. Gramsch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

By order of 3 March 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

(Case C-487/15 P)

(2016/C 191/04)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: J. Krenzel, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Redrock Construction s.r.o.

By order of 25 February 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński

(Case C-537/15)

(2016/C 191/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Bank SA

Defendant: Marek Łopaciński

Questions referred

By order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 it was decided that there was no need to proceed to judgment in the case.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-653/15 P)

(2016/C 191/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Carsten Bopp (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 7 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided that the appellant must bear his own costs.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/4

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council

(Case C-53/16 P)

(2016/C 191/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Carsten René Beul (represented by: H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of 23 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 23 November 2015;

| — | annul Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 and, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 and, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the action before the General Court, the appellant sought the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC.

The appellant is a chartered account in Germany (and also an auditor under the law of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and the Italian Republic). He is authorised to audit public-interest entities. As an accountant, his whole professional activity is supervised by the chamber of accountants, an entity of public law, of which accountants are members and elect the members of its internal bodies.

Regulation No 537/2014 (‘the Regulation’) provides that, in auditing public-interest entities, auditors are to be supervised by an authority which is independent, that is also free of State influence. In no circumstances may an active member of the accounting profession be part of that authority, and a former accountant only after a lengthy period of inactivity.

The appellant considers that the Regulation causes prejudice to him. He claims that the Regulation infringes EU law.

The General Court dismissed the appellant’s action as inadmissible. It found that the appellant did not have standing to bring proceedings to challenge the Regulation. The General Court based its decision on the ground that the appellant was not individually concerned by the Regulation, since he belongs to the class of persons falling within the abstract remit of the Regulation and cannot rely on any individual rights.

Against the finding of the General Court, the appellant claims that he is directly and individually concerned by the Regulation. In particular, the circle of addressees concerned by the Regulation is open, not least also because, between the enactment of the Regulation and its entry into force, there is a time in which an indefinite number of persons could fall within the circle of members of the profession.

The General Court failed to recognises this direct and individual concern. In particular, the circle of members of the profession is, at any given point in time, certain by carrying out the supervision provided for in EU law. The existence of a period of time between enactment and entry into force cannot determine whether there is judicial protection.

Moreover, the appellant submits that, in finding that there is a lack of individual concern, there is a gap in the law. In the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also protects the freedom to choose an occupation, and the European Convention of Human Rights, that gap in the law must be remedied. That falls within the responsibility and purview of the EU judicature, for it has created the situation in which the gap in the law has arisen.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/5

---

Appeal brought on 1 February 2016 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2015 in joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: ClientEarth v European Commission

(Case C-57/16 P)

(2016/C 191/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, F. Heringa, J. Wolfhagen, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| i. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 by which it:






  — | dismissed the actions brought by the Appellant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

i.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 by which it:

—

dismissed the actions brought by the Appellant;

| — | ordered the Appellant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

ordered the Appellant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| ii. | to order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

to order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant respectfully submits that the Judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

Ground 1
  : Error in law in accepting a general presumption in the context of article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) (first subparagraph) with respect to the requested documents.

The General Court committed an error in law, since it:

| i. | misapplied the case-law of the CJ; |
| --- | --- |

i.

misapplied the case-law of the CJ;

| ii. | failed to recognize that Article 17(1) to (3) TEU provides no basis to accept such general presumption; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

failed to recognize that Article 17(1) to (3) TEU provides no basis to accept such general presumption;

| iii. | accepted a general presumption with respect to non-disclosure of the requested documents without applying the test of actual and specific harm; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

accepted a general presumption with respect to non-disclosure of the requested documents without applying the test of actual and specific harm;

| iv. | failed to acknowledge that the requested documents are intrinsically linked to the decision to pursue or not to pursue legislative policy initiatives; |
| --- | --- |

iv.

failed to acknowledge that the requested documents are intrinsically linked to the decision to pursue or not to pursue legislative policy initiatives;

Ground 2
  : Error in law in not recognizing the existence of an overriding public interest.

The General Court committed an error in law, since it:

| i. | failed to consider the specific public interests raised by ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

i.

failed to consider the specific public interests raised by ClientEarth;

| ii. | found that the disclosure of requested documents at a later point in time precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

found that the disclosure of requested documents at a later point in time precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents;

| iii. | found that the disclosure of documents other than the requested documents precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

found that the disclosure of documents other than the requested documents precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents;

| iv. | did not recognise the nature of the public interest represented by ClientEarth; |
| --- | --- |

iv.

did not recognise the nature of the public interest represented by ClientEarth;

| v. | failed to interpret the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure, as provided by the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (2); |
| --- | --- |

v.

failed to interpret the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure, as provided by the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (2);

| vi. | did not recognise the public interest in the improvement of access to justice in environmental matters. |
| --- | --- |

vi.

did not recognise the public interest in the improvement of access to justice in environmental matters.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents OJ L 145, p. 43

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

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/6

---

Appeal brought on 9 February 2016 by Comercializadora Eloro, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2015 in Case T-354/14 Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (Zumex)

(Case C-71/16 P)

(2016/C 191/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Comercializadora Eloro, S.A. (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Zumex Group, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | as regards the submission of evidence, deem adduced and admitted the documentary evidence submitted at the end of the appeal procedure which was resubmitted with the application initiating the action and is numbered from Document No 1 to Document No 7, as specified in the list of annexes appended to that application. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the submission of evidence, deem adduced and admitted the documentary evidence submitted at the end of the appeal procedure which was resubmitted with the application initiating the action and is numbered from Document No 1 to Document No 7, as specified in the list of annexes appended to that application.

| — | hold, on the basis of the documents filed in the administrative procedure, that the applicant (Comercializadora Eloro, S.A.) has provided sufficient proof of real and genuine use in the relevant period and territory of its mark JUMEX for fruit juices in Class 32. |
| --- | --- |

—

hold, on the basis of the documents filed in the administrative procedure, that the applicant (Comercializadora Eloro, S.A.) has provided sufficient proof of real and genuine use in the relevant period and territory of its mark JUMEX for fruit juices in Class 32.

| — | on account of the opponent — who is the appellant in the present proceedings — having proved use of the earlier mark, refuse registration of the mark applied for, ZUMEX, for all goods in Class 32 because of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers arising from the coexistence in the market of both marks, the similarity of the words and their identity in application. |
| --- | --- |

—

on account of the opponent — who is the appellant in the present proceedings — having proved use of the earlier mark, refuse registration of the mark applied for, ZUMEX, for all goods in Class 32 because of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers arising from the coexistence in the market of both marks, the similarity of the words and their identity in application.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground: infringement of Article 42(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation
   (1)
  and Rules 22(2) and 22(3) of the Community Trade Mark Implementing Regulation
   (2)

The EUIPO Opposition Division found that the proof of use submitted by the opponent reached the minimum level required to declare that there had been genuine use of the mark during the relevant period and in the relevant territory.

The doubts expressed in the contested decision as to whether the goods sold to the Dutch firm ‘Nidera General Merchandise, B.V.’ actually entered EU territory are solely based on one piece of documentary evidence, namely: that firm’s website (available at www.ngm-int.com), in which it is stated that it is West African countries that are the destination for its commercial transactions

In that regard, the evidentiary value of the print-outs from that website must be rejected, since these date from the time when that evidence was first submitted and reviewed, that is, on or around 5 August 2011, which is eight years after the beginning of the relevant period for proof of use and three years following the end of that period. During that interval the trading activity and geographical ambit of the company in question could have varied significantly. Legal logic requires evidence adduced to refute the use of the mark to relate to the relevant period and not to several years after the end of that period.

The invoices submitted as evidence show that the Dutch firm ‘Nidera General Marchandise, B.V.’, established in Rotterdam, is not only the purchaser of the goods but also the consignee of the goods sold, which suggests that those goods entered EU territory.

The opponent has provided evidence that that firm belongs to the ‘Nidera’ corporate group that operates in several European countries, including Spain, through its subsidiary ‘Nidera Agro Comercial, S.A.’, which is a strong indication that the goods it purchased were destined for the European market.

The opponent having borne the burden of proof of use of its mark, and that use having been established by the provision of invoices of the sale of goods bearing the mark, the burden of proof must be reversed when the virtuality of that proof is argued. Thus the burden of proving, beyond mere conjectures and assumptions, that the proof adduced is insufficient must be borne by the trade mark applicant.

Second ground: infringement of Article 15(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation

The fact that the Dutch firm ‘Nidera General Merchandise, B.V.’ appears in invoices as the consignee of the goods means that the goods cannot have been dispatched from the customs territory of the European Union under the external transit procedure, and implies that the goods actually entered the relevant territory, even though they were subsequently re-exported to Africa.

The judgment under appeal rejects the argument that import for the sole purpose of re-export constitutes genuine use of the mark, on the grounds that such an activity does not enable market share to be created and maintained. Nevertheless, this is analogous to the situation provided for in Article 15(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation: affixing of the mark for the sole purpose of exportation, an activity which does not enable the creation and maintenance of a market share in the territory of the European Union either.

Third ground: infringement of Article 76(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation

It is clear from the provision and from the case-law that the general rule is the admission of allegations and evidence even when submitted out of time. Accordingly, the discretion conferred on EUIPO must be interpreted narrowly and require an explanation justifying refusal. Discretion does not mean arbitrariness or subjectivity.

The new invoices and packaging labels submitted at the end of the appeal procedure, numbered from Document No 1 to Document No 7, were fundamental for, having been issued by other European firms, they were capable of dispelling the doubts raised as regards the invoices issued by the Dutch firm ‘Nidera General Merchandise, B.V.’.

When providing proof of use of its mark, the opponent faced chronological difficulties: the evidence had to be gathered three years after such use, and geographical difficulties: the opponent is a Mexican company and its interests are mainly situated in the American continent.

Consideration of the chronological and geographical circumstances, and the fundamental importance of the documents submitted out of time for the resolution of the proceedings, should have led to those documents being admitted, resulting in a finding that there was proof of real and genuine use of the opponent’s earlier mark and enabling the required comparison of the marks at issue to be carried out in order to determine the existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the consumer.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version)

OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others

(Case C-111/16)

(2016/C 191/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Udine

Criminal proceedings against:

Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga and Luciano Taboga

Questions referred

| 1. | When requested to do so by a Member State, is the Commission required, for the purposes of Article 54(1) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, even if in the Commission’s assessment in respect of certain food or feed there is no serious, evident risk to human and animal health or to the environment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When requested to do so by a Member State, is the Commission required, for the purposes of Article 54(1) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, even if in the Commission’s assessment in respect of certain food or feed there is no serious, evident risk to human and animal health or to the environment?

| 2. | Where the Commission notifies the Member State which had sought its assessment that its assessment is at odds with the Member State’s request — an assessment which in theory precludes the need to adopt emergency measures — and where, accordingly, the Commission does not adopt such emergency measures within the meaning of Article 34 Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) as requested by that Member State, is the Member State which made the request authorised, pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, to adopt interim emergency measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where the Commission notifies the Member State which had sought its assessment that its assessment is at odds with the Member State’s request — an assessment which in theory precludes the need to adopt emergency measures — and where, accordingly, the Commission does not adopt such emergency measures within the meaning of Article 34 Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) as requested by that Member State, is the Member State which made the request authorised, pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, to adopt interim emergency measures?

| 3. | May considerations relating to the precautionary principle which go beyond the parameters of serious and evident risk to human or animal health or the environment in the use of food or feed justify the adoption of interim emergency measures by a Member State within the meaning of Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May considerations relating to the precautionary principle which go beyond the parameters of serious and evident risk to human or animal health or the environment in the use of food or feed justify the adoption of interim emergency measures by a Member State within the meaning of Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003?

| 4. | Where it is clear and obvious that the European Commission has made the assessment that the substantive conditions for the adoption of emergency measures for food or feed are not met, which is later confirmed by an EFSA Scientific Opinion, and where that assessment was notified in writing to the Member State which made the request, may that Member State continue to maintain in force its existing interim emergency measures and/or extend the validity of such interim emergency measures, when the interim period for which they were put in place has expired? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where it is clear and obvious that the European Commission has made the assessment that the substantive conditions for the adoption of emergency measures for food or feed are not met, which is later confirmed by an EFSA Scientific Opinion, and where that assessment was notified in writing to the Member State which made the request, may that Member State continue to maintain in force its existing interim emergency measures and/or extend the validity of such interim emergency measures, when the interim period for which they were put in place has expired?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/9

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission

(Case C-122/16 P)

(2016/C 191/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: British Airways plc (represented by: J. Turner QC, R. O'Donoghue, Barristers, A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it limits the scope of the annulment of the contested European Commission Decision to the form of order sought by British Airways in its original application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it limits the scope of the annulment of the contested European Commission Decision to the form of order sought by British Airways in its original application for annulment;

| — | set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment;

| — | annul the contested European Commission Decision in full; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested European Commission Decision in full; and

| — | award British Airways the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

award British Airways the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present application British Airways plc is seeking to have partially set aside the decision of the General Court rendered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11, British Airways plc v European Commission. The Judgment partly annulled the Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 in Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight, in so far as it concerns British Airways.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, that the General Court erred in law by applying the concept of ultra petita to constrain its actions even when the General Court had of its own motion found there to be fundamental public policy defects which vitiated the European Commission’s Decision entirely. By raising a public policy issue of its own motion, and by deciding the case before it on that basis, the General Court did not rule ultra petita; the General Court therefore erred in law in considering itself restricted by ultra petita when it came to deciding on the consequences of its ruling in the operative part of its judgment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, that the General Court erred in law by applying the concept of ultra petita to constrain its actions even when the General Court had of its own motion found there to be fundamental public policy defects which vitiated the European Commission’s Decision entirely. By raising a public policy issue of its own motion, and by deciding the case before it on that basis, the General Court did not rule ultra petita; the General Court therefore erred in law in considering itself restricted by ultra petita when it came to deciding on the consequences of its ruling in the operative part of its judgment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, that alternatively, even if the principle of ultra petita was engaged, the General Court should have held that it was nonetheless free — indeed obliged — to annul the contested Decision entirely in order to give effect to its conclusions that there was a defect in the contested Decision which violated superior norms of law, namely the principles of legality and of effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, that alternatively, even if the principle of ultra petita was engaged, the General Court should have held that it was nonetheless free — indeed obliged — to annul the contested Decision entirely in order to give effect to its conclusions that there was a defect in the contested Decision which violated superior norms of law, namely the principles of legality and of effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/10

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2016 by Orange Polska SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Case T-486/11: Orange Polska SA v European Commission

(Case C-123/16 P)

(2016/C 191/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Orange Polska SA (represented by: D.M. Beard QC, A. Howard, Barristers, M. Modzelewska de Raad, adwokat, P. Paśnik, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Judgment;

| — | annul the Decision in its entirety; alternatively |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision in its entirety; alternatively

| — | annul Article 2 of the Decision in its entirety; or in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the Decision in its entirety; or in the alternative,

| — | reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; or in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; or in the alternative

| — | remit the decision in relation to the fine to the Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the decision in relation to the fine to the Commission; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Appellant raises three pleas in law — the first plea challenges the substantive validity of the finding of infringement in the contested Commission Decision, whereas as the latter two are directed against the level of the fine imposed by virtue of Article 2 of the Decision.

| a. | First, the Appellant contends that the General Court has committed an error of law and reasoning by failing to require the Commission to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct. |
| --- | --- |

a.

First, the Appellant contends that the General Court has committed an error of law and reasoning by failing to require the Commission to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct.

| b. | Secondly, the General court has committed a number of errors of law and/or distorted the evidence in upholding the Commission’s appraisal of the impact of the infringement for the purpose of calculating the level of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Secondly, the General court has committed a number of errors of law and/or distorted the evidence in upholding the Commission’s appraisal of the impact of the infringement for the purpose of calculating the level of the fine.

| c. | Thirdly, the General court has committed errors of law and has manifestly erred in its appreciation of the evidence in refusing to give credit for the investments made by Orange so as to reduce the fine due to mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Thirdly, the General court has committed errors of law and has manifestly erred in its appreciation of the evidence in refusing to give credit for the investments made by Orange so as to reduce the fine due to mitigating circumstances.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili (Malta) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

(Case C-125/16)

(2016/C 191/13)

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Malta Dental Technologists Association and Others

Defendants: Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, or their refusal to grant recognition to the profession of clinical dental technologists/denturists, whereby, despite the absence of discrimination in law, individuals from other Member States who have made an application in this respect are in practice precluded from establishing their profession in Malta, incompatible with the principles and the legal provisions regulating the creation of the single market, in particular those resulting from Articles 49 TFEU, 52 TFEU and 56 TFEU, in a situation where there is no risk to public health? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, or their refusal to grant recognition to the profession of clinical dental technologists/denturists, whereby, despite the absence of discrimination in law, individuals from other Member States who have made an application in this respect are in practice precluded from establishing their profession in Malta, incompatible with the principles and the legal provisions regulating the creation of the single market, in particular those resulting from Articles 49 TFEU, 52 TFEU and 56 TFEU, in a situation where there is no risk to public health?

| 2. | Should Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, known as the Professional Qualifications Directive, be applied with respect to clinical dental technologists in view of the fact that, should a denture prove to be defective, the only consequence would be that the defective dental appliance would have to be modified or replaced, without any risk to the patient? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005, known as the Professional Qualifications Directive, be applied with respect to clinical dental technologists in view of the fact that, should a denture prove to be defective, the only consequence would be that the defective dental appliance would have to be modified or replaced, without any risk to the patient?

| 3. | Can the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, which is being contested in the present case, serve to ensure the aim of having a high level of public health protection, when any defective denture can be replaced without any risk to the patient? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the prohibition by the Maltese health authorities, which is being contested in the present case, serve to ensure the aim of having a high level of public health protection, when any defective denture can be replaced without any risk to the patient?

| 4. | Does the way in which the defendant, the Superintendent of Public Health, interprets and enforces Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 with respect to clinical dental technologists who have applied for recognition by the same Maltese health authorities constitute an infringement of the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the way in which the defendant, the Superintendent of Public Health, interprets and enforces Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 with respect to clinical dental technologists who have applied for recognition by the same Maltese health authorities constitute an infringement of the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2016 — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA

(Case C-133/16)

(2016/C 191/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Ferenschild

Defendant: JPC Motor SA

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) thereof, (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which is interpreted as allowing, for second-hand goods, the limitation period for action by the consumer to expire before the end of the two-year period as from delivery of goods which are not in conformity with the contract, where the seller and the consumer have agreed on a guarantee period of less than two years?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2016 — Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-141/16)

(2016/C 191/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani

Respondent: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

Question referred

Do Articles 56 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, having regard also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union itself, on gambling and betting services such as the judgments in Gambelli, Placanica and Costa and Cifone, on tax discrimination such as the judgments in Lindman, Commission v Spain, and Bianco and Fabretti, and to the EU law principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation, under consideration in the present dispute, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of betting operators, established in a different EU Member State, in particular, those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly, those betting operators, jointly with their national intermediaries, liable, even retrospectively, to the Single Tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998, as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Stability Law 2011?

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-151/16)

(2016/C 191/16)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (1) restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, (2) be interpreted as meaning that excise duty may not be levied on the supply of energy products in circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which those products are supplied as fuel for a ship to be used in navigation within [European Union] waters with the objective, not involving direct consideration, of sailing that ship under its own power from the place where it was built to a port in another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (1) restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, (2) be interpreted as meaning that excise duty may not be levied on the supply of energy products in circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which those products are supplied as fuel for a ship to be used in navigation within [European Union] waters with the objective, not involving direct consideration, of sailing that ship under its own power from the place where it was built to a port in another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo?

| 2. | Does Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 stand in the way of provisions of national legislation of Member States, such as those applicable in the present case, which preclude the benefit of the tax exemption provided for in that provision in the case where the supply of energy products was carried out in breach of the conditions laid down by the Member State, even though that supply satisfies the essential conditions for application of the exemption set out in that provision of Directive 2003/96? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 stand in the way of provisions of national legislation of Member States, such as those applicable in the present case, which preclude the benefit of the tax exemption provided for in that provision in the case where the supply of energy products was carried out in breach of the conditions laid down by the Member State, even though that supply satisfies the essential conditions for application of the exemption set out in that provision of Directive 2003/96?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 100.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/13

---

Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-152/16)

(2016/C 191/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009 provides that each Member State is to keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by the competent national authority to engage in the occupation of road transport operator.

However, it is apparent from the answer given by the Luxembourg State to the letter of formal notice that such a national register has not been set up.

It follows that the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

Under Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009, the Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the national electronic registers are interconnected and accessible throughout the European Union.

As it does not even have a national register, there can be no doubt that the Luxembourg Administration has not taken the measures necessary to interconnect its national register (which it does not have) with other national registers.

That being the case, the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 March 2016 — VAS ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-154/16)

(2016/C 191/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAS ‘Latvijas dzelzceļš’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable provided that the complete cargo is not presented at the customs office of destination of the external transit procedure, even if it is proved that the goods have been destroyed and irretrievably lost? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable provided that the complete cargo is not presented at the customs office of destination of the external transit procedure, even if it is proved that the goods have been destroyed and irretrievably lost?

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, may sufficient proof of the destruction of the goods and, consequently, the fact that the goods are excluded from entering the economic channels of the Member State, justify application of Article 204(1)(a) and Article 206 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, so that the amount of the goods destroyed during external transit is not included in the calculation of the customs debt? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, may sufficient proof of the destruction of the goods and, consequently, the fact that the goods are excluded from entering the economic channels of the Member State, justify application of Article 204(1)(a) and Article 206 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, so that the amount of the goods destroyed during external transit is not included in the calculation of the customs debt?

| 3. | If Article 203(1), Article 204(1)(a) and Article 206 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code may be interpreted as meaning that customs duty on importation is payable on the amount of goods destroyed during external transit, may Article 2 (1)(d), Article 70 and Article 71 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that value added tax must be paid together with import duties, even if actual entry of the goods into the economic channels of the Member State is excluded? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Article 203(1), Article 204(1)(a) and Article 206 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code may be interpreted as meaning that customs duty on importation is payable on the amount of goods destroyed during external transit, may Article 2 (1)(d), Article 70 and Article 71 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that value added tax must be paid together with import duties, even if actual entry of the goods into the economic channels of the Member State is excluded?

| 4. | Must Article 96 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the principal is always responsible for payment of that customs debt, as stated in the external transit procedure, irrespective of whether the carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Article 96(2)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 96 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the principal is always responsible for payment of that customs debt, as stated in the external transit procedure, irrespective of whether the carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Article 96(2)?

| 5. | Must Article 94(1), Article 96(1) and Article 213 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the Customs Authority of the Member State is required to declare jointly and severally liable all those persons who, in the specific circumstances, may be regarded as responsible for the customs debt together with the principal, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Code? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 94(1), Article 96(1) and Article 213 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the Customs Authority of the Member State is required to declare jointly and severally liable all those persons who, in the specific circumstances, may be regarded as responsible for the customs debt together with the principal, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Code?

| 6. | If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative and if the laws of the Member State link the obligation to pay value added tax on importation of goods, in general, to the procedure under which goods may be released for free circulation, are Articles 201, 202 and 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State is required to declare jointly and severally liable for payment of value added tax all those persons who, in the specific circumstances, may be regarded as liable for the customs debt under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative and if the laws of the Member State link the obligation to pay value added tax on importation of goods, in general, to the procedure under which goods may be released for free circulation, are Articles 201, 202 and 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State is required to declare jointly and severally liable for payment of value added tax all those persons who, in the specific circumstances, may be regarded as liable for the customs debt under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code?

| 7. | If the reply to questions 5 or 6 is in the affirmative, may Article 96(1) and Article 213 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, and Articles 201, 202 and 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that if the customs authority of the Member State has, because of error, failed to hold any of the persons responsible together with the principal jointly and severally liable for the customs debt, this fact alone may justify releasing the principal from liability for the customs debt? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If the reply to questions 5 or 6 is in the affirmative, may Article 96(1) and Article 213 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, and Articles 201, 202 and 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that if the customs authority of the Member State has, because of error, failed to hold any of the persons responsible together with the principal jointly and severally liable for the customs debt, this fact alone may justify releasing the principal from liability for the customs debt?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

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

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome

(Case C-159/16)

(2016/C 191/19)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)?

| 2. | Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses?

| 3. | May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

(Case C-164/16)

(2016/C 191/20)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | What is the meaning of the words ‘a contract...which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’ in Article 14.2(b) (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the meaning of the words ‘a contract...which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’ in Article 14.2(b) (1)?

| 2. | In particular, in the context of the present case, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require a tax authority to do no more than to identify the existence of an option to purchase which can be exercised no later than upon payment of the final instalment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, in the context of the present case, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require a tax authority to do no more than to identify the existence of an option to purchase which can be exercised no later than upon payment of the final instalment?

| 3. | Alternatively, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require the national authority to go further and to determine the economic purpose of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Alternatively, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require the national authority to go further and to determine the economic purpose of the contract?

| 4. | If the answer to (3) is yes:






  a. | Should the interpretation of Article 14.2 be influenced by an analysis of whether the customer is likely to exercise such an option? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to (3) is yes:

a.

Should the interpretation of Article 14.2 be influenced by an analysis of whether the customer is likely to exercise such an option?

| b. | Is the size of the price payable on exercise of the option to purchase relevant for the purposes of determining the economic purpose of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

b.

Is the size of the price payable on exercise of the option to purchase relevant for the purposes of determining the economic purpose of the contract?

---

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

OJ L 347, p. 1

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-165/16)

(2016/C 191/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toufik Lounes

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question referred

Where a Spanish national and Union citizen:

| i. | moves to the United Kingdom, in the exercise of her right to free movement under Directive 2004/38/EC (1); and |
| --- | --- |

i.

moves to the United Kingdom, in the exercise of her right to free movement under Directive 2004/38/EC (1); and

| ii. | resides in the United Kingdom in the exercise of her right under Article 7 or Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC; and |
| --- | --- |

ii.

resides in the United Kingdom in the exercise of her right under Article 7 or Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC; and

| iii. | subsequently acquires British citizenship, which she holds in addition to her Spanish nationality, as a dual national; and |
| --- | --- |

iii.

subsequently acquires British citizenship, which she holds in addition to her Spanish nationality, as a dual national; and

| iv. | several years after acquiring British citizenship, marries a third country national with whom she resides in the United Kingdom; |
| --- | --- |

iv.

several years after acquiring British citizenship, marries a third country national with whom she resides in the United Kingdom;

are she and her spouse both beneficiaries of Directive 2004/38/EC, within the meaning of Article 3(1), whilst she is residing in the United Kingdom, and holding both Spanish nationality and British citizenship?

---

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

OJ L 158, p. 77

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro v Crewlink Ltd

(Case C-168/16)

(2016/C 191/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro

Respondent: Crewlink Ltd

Question referred

Taking into account:

| — | the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012 in Mahamdia (C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46), |
| --- | --- |

—

the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012 in Mahamdia (C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46),

| — | the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union and who are assigned to that airline by another company whose registered office is in the same State, who fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State, |
| --- | --- |

—

the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union and who are assigned to that airline by another company whose registered office is in the same State, who fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State,

| — | the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the present order for reference, |
| --- | --- |

—

the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the present order for reference,

| — | the criterion derived from the concept of ‘home base’ (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews, |
| --- | --- |

—

the criterion derived from the concept of ‘home base’ (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews,

| — | the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference, |
| --- | --- |

—

the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference,

may the concept of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted as being comparable to that of ‘home base’, defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 as ‘the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned’, for the purpose of determining the Contracting State (and thus the jurisdiction) on whose territory employees habitually carry out their work where those employees are employed as members of the air crew of an airline, subject to the laws of a Member State of the European Union, that transports passengers internationally by air throughout the territory of the European Union, since that criterion of connection, based on the ‘home base’, in the sense of ‘the effective centre of the work relationship’, inasmuch as all the employees systematically begin and end their working day at that place, organise their daily work there and, throughout the period of their contractual relationship maintain their residence there, is the criterion which both indicates the closest connection with a Contracting State and ensures the most satisfactory protection of the weaker party in the contractual relationship?

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-169/16)

(2016/C 191/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Miguel José Moreno Osacar

Respondent: Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred

Taking into account:

| — | the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012 in Mahamdia (C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46), |
| --- | --- |

—

the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial proceedings laid down in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) (see, in particular, the judgment of 19 July 2012 in Mahamdia (C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491, paragraphs 44 and 46),

| — | the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State, |
| --- | --- |

—

the particular features of the European air navigation sector, in which air crews working for airlines whose registered office is in one of the Member States of the European Union fly over, on a daily basis, the territory of the European Union, departing from a home base that may, as in the present case, be located in another Member State,

| — | the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the present order for reference, |
| --- | --- |

—

the particular circumstances of the present case as described in the grounds of the present order for reference,

| — | the criterion derived from the concept of ‘home base’ (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews, |
| --- | --- |

—

the criterion derived from the concept of ‘home base’ (as defined in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91), which is used in Regulation No 883/2004 to determine which social security legislation applies, with effect from 28 June 2012, to airline flight crews and cabin crews,

| — | the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference, |
| --- | --- |

—

the approach taken in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the terms of the judgments cited in the grounds of the present order for reference,

may the concept of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted as being comparable to that of ‘home base’, defined in Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 as ‘the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned’, for the purpose of determining the Contracting State (and thus the jurisdiction) on whose territory an employee habitually carries out his work where the employee is employed as a member of the air crew of an airline, subject to the laws of a Member State of the European Union, that transports passengers internationally by air throughout the territory of the European Union, since that criterion of connection, based on the ‘home base’, in the sense of ‘the effective centre of the work relationship’, inasmuch as the employee systematically begins and ends his working day at that place, organises his daily work there and, throughout the period of his contractual relationship maintains his residence there, is the criterion which both indicates the closest connection with a Contracting State and ensures the most satisfactory protection of the weaker party in the contractual relationship?

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry

(Case C-175/16)

(2016/C 191/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik

Respondent: SOS-Lapsikylä ry

Question referred

Must Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as including within its scope an activity, as described above, performed in a children’s home in which the worker acts as the representative of foster parents of children in care on the parents’ days off, lives during this period with the children in a family-like setting and during this time independently attends equally to the children’s and family’s needs, as parents generally do?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/20

---

Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission

(Case C-176/16 P)

(2016/C 191/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni, G. Pescatore, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of inadmissibility No 704600 of 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 on the grounds set out, which are to be taken to be referred to and reproduced in full. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of inadmissibility No 704600 of 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 on the grounds set out, which are to be taken to be referred to and reproduced in full.

| — | Declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling, following the adoption of any measures it may think fit to take. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling, following the adoption of any measures it may think fit to take.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. If the present appeal should be dismissed (quod non), the appellant requests that from now on the parties should bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. If the present appeal should be dismissed (quod non), the appellant requests that from now on the parties should bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following three grounds on the plea of inadmissibility:

FIRST GROUND: Error in law and in fact regarding the lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings. The General Court, in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the order, erroneously ruled that the applicant had no legal interest in applying for annulment of the Regulation, identifying by means of illogical reasoning the distributors of third party brands as the sole beneficiaries of the annulment of the contested Regulation exclusively, and not Proforec directly.

SECOND GROUND: Failure by the General Court to apply Article 263(4) of TFEU to the consideration of the applicant’s legal interest in bringing proceedings, which was denied.

THIRD GROUND: In paragraphs 32 to 35 of the order of inadmissibility, the General Court did not give an adequate statement of reasons for the applicant’s lack of legal interest, in that it misrepresented the facts concerning the lack of risk of legal proceedings being brought against Proforec, failing to consider it as an existing risk on the date the proceedings were started, and not taking any position on the obvious infringement of the regulation in relation to the omission of a transitional period for the disposal of stocks and packaging.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2016 — Sadikou Gnandi v État belge

(Case C-181/16)

(2016/C 191/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sadikou Gnandi

Respondent: État belge

Question referred

Must Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) which requires Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement when they are implementing that directive, and the right to an effective remedy provided for under Article 13(1) of that directive and under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a return decision, as provided for under Article 6 of the aforementioned Directive 2008/115/EC and under Article 52/3(1) of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the national territory, settlement, residence and removal of foreign nationals and Article 75(2) of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on entry to the national territory, residence, settlement and removal of foreign nationals, after the rejection of the asylum application by the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and therefore before the legal remedies available against that rejection decision can be exhausted and before the asylum procedure can be definitively concluded?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/22

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — European Commission v Austrian Republic

(Case C-187/16)

(2016/C 191/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Austrian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that the Austrian Republic:






  — | by awarding public service contracts directly to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH for the manufacture of certain documents, such as chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, fireworks display permits, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle licences under and above the thresholds applicable under Directive 92/50/EEC and Directive 2004/18/EC in the time before and after the transposition of Directive 2004/18/EC, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declare that the Austrian Republic:

—

by awarding public service contracts directly to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH for the manufacture of certain documents, such as chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, fireworks display permits, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle licences under and above the thresholds applicable under Directive 92/50/EEC and Directive 2004/18/EC in the time before and after the transposition of Directive 2004/18/EC, and

| — | by maintaining national provisions, such as in particular Paragraph 2(3) of the Federal Law on the reorganisation of the legal relationships of the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, which require contracting authorities to award those public service contracts exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

—

by maintaining national provisions, such as in particular Paragraph 2(3) of the Federal Law on the reorganisation of the legal relationships of the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, which require contracting authorities to award those public service contracts exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH;

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU or under Article 4 read in conjunction with Articles 11 to 37 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and Articles 14, 20 and 23 to 55 of Directive 2004/18/EC. (2)

| 2. | Order the Austrian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Austrian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following arguments:

Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH is a private undertaking.

Austrian law requires that the manufacture of all documents which entail secrecy or compliance with security rules to be awarded exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH.

Austrian contracting authorities were therefore required to award public service contracts for the manufacture of chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, credit card-sized driving licences, credit card-sized vehicle licences and fireworks display permits directly to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH.

Austrian contracting authorities had, however, the obligation to award the manufacture of the above documents to undertakings that were selected following award procedures which conformed to the requirements of Directive 92/50/EEC and Directive 2004/18/EC or with a sufficient degree of publicity pursuant to the TFEU.

In so far as Austrian contracting authorities awarded public service contracts for the manufacture of the above documents to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH without carrying out award procedures and were, on the basis of national law, required to award public service contracts for the manufacture of those documents exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH, Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---

General Court

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — 100 % Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)

(Case T-198/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark 100 % Capri - Earlier European Union figurative mark CAPRI - Relative ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: 100 % Capri Italia Srl (Capri, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI), formerly Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta and M. Franzosi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2014 (Case R 2122/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI) and 100 % Capri Italia Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 100 % Capri Italia Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 100 % Capri Italia Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-200/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Inclusion of the name of the applicant on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the earlier freezing of funds measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to property - Proportionality - Error of fact - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to life - Right to a family life - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 191/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014, amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 38), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 2), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case T-326/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER - Earlier national figurative mark Joker - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: D. Lichtlen, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2014 (Case R 589/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Industrias Tomás Morcillo v EUIPO — Aucar Trailer (Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits)

(Case T-613/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits - Earlier European Union figurative mark POLICAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL (Albuixech, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO: Aucar Trailer, SL (Premia de Mar, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 7 May 2014 (Case R 1735/2012-1), elating to opposition proceedings between Aucar Trailer, SL and Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2016 Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

(Case T-638/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA - Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier trademark - Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court - Power to alter decisions - Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 191/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA (Espírito Santo, Brazil)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste, SA and Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4);

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Auyantepui Corp. v EUIPO — Magda Rose (Mr Jones)

(Case T-8/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark Mr Jones - Earlier international figurative mark Jones - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Auyantepui Corp., SA (Panama, Panama) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2014 (Case R 49/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG and Auyantepui Corp., SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Auyantepui Corp., SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Auyantepui Corp., SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2016 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v EUIPO — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)

(Case T-20/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PICCOLOMINI - Earlier EU word mark PICCOLO - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola (Milan, Italy) (represented by F. Cecchi, P. Pozzi and F. Ghisletti Giovanni, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 2265/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG and Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Facchinello v EUIPO — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)

(Case T-81/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Synthesis - Absence of genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))

(2016/C 191/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Danila Facchinello (Molinella, Italy) (represented by: F. Torlontano, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Olimpia Splendid Spa (Gualtieri, Italy) (represented by: A. Ferrarese and G. Ferrarese, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2169/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Olimpia Splendid SpA and Ms Danila Facchinello.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Danila Facchinello to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Danila Facchinello to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Spirig Pharma v EUIPO (Daylong)

(Case T-261/15) (1)

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

(2016/C 191/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2015 (Case R 2455/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Daylong as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Spirig Pharma AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Spirig Pharma AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Choice v EUIPO (Choice chocolate & ice cream)

(Case T-361/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for the European Union figurative mark Choice chocolate & ice cream - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive Character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2015 (Case R 2221/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Choice chocolate & ice cream as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Choice sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 07.09.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/29

---

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission

(Case T-580/14) (1)

((Customs union - Import of flavoured or coloured sugar syrups from Andorra - Fraud - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 191/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: I. Toda Jiménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 2376 final of 15 April 2014, finding in a particular case that remission of import duties was not justified (REM 02/2012).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL is ordered to pay one third of the costs of the European Commission and its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL is ordered to pay one third of the costs of the European Commission and its own costs.

| 3. | The European Commission is ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission is ordered to bear two thirds of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/30

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T-644/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme - Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 191/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2014) 4485 final of 27 June 2014 concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 194 275,34, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241311168, 3241311170 and 3241311175 relating to EUR 62 649,47, EUR 78 991,12 and EUR 52 634,75 respectively.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-644/14 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-644/14 R.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/30

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament

(Case T-181/15) (1)

((Public service contracts - Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services - Withdrawal of the act - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 191/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to use the negotiated procedure PE/ITEC-NPE-15.8 without prior publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services to the Parliament and to other institutions and agencies of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Parliament is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Parliament is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T-364/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme - Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 191/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2015) 3117 final of 4 May 2015 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 432 637,97, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241408192 and 3241409206 relating to EUR 155 507,97 and EUR 277 130 respectively.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-364/15 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-364/15 R.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/32

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

(Case T-535/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 191/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 (Case R 2470/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ÏD Group and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA

(Case T-725/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 191/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the suspension of operation of the EFSA Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite 4-chloroaniline (PCA) in respect of which the applicant requested partial confidential treatment.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 15 December 2015 delivered in Case T-725/15 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 15 December 2015 delivered in Case T-725/15 R is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T-10/16 R)

((Application for interim measures - Grants - Sixth and seventh framework programmes of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) - Letters requesting the repayment of part of the grants awarded - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 191/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, S. Lejeune and M. Sickierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of, first, two letters from the Commission dated 2 December 2015 informing the applicant that it would proceed with the recovery of a part of the grants that had been awarded to it in the context of the Commission’s sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) and, secondly, a Commission debit note ordering it to pay EUR 1 770 417,29 by 15 January 2016 at the latest.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 18 January 2016 delivered in Case T-10/16 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 18 January 2016 delivered in Case T-10/16 R is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T-41/16 R)

((Application for interim measures - Procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin - ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ - Rejection of opposition - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2016/C 191/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd (Nicosia), Süt Ürünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia), and Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt, Cyprus) (represented by: B. O’Connor, solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, J. Guillem Carrau and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking the grant of interim measures relating to the procedure for registration of the cheese referred to as ‘halloumi/hellim’ as a protected designation of origin under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/34

---

Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)

(Case T-771/15)

(2016/C 191/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Hopper, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BitTorrent, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU mark No 3 216 439

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2275/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) and of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) and of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/35

---

Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

(Case T-117/16)

(2016/C 191/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration;

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

—

Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/36

---

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-131/16)

(2016/C 191/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, acting as agents, assisted by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;

| — | annul Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as it does not properly identify the state aid measure, classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, and considers it incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as it does not properly identify the state aid measure, classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, and considers it incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision in so far as they consider the excess profit ruling system as state aid incompatible with the internal market and order the recovery of the alleged state aid from the corporate groups to which the recipients belong in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision in so far as they consider the excess profit ruling system as state aid incompatible with the internal market and order the recovery of the alleged state aid from the corporate groups to which the recipients belong in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6) TFEU, Article 5(1) and (2) TEU by using the state aid rules to unilaterally define the tax jurisdiction of the Belgian State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6) TFEU, Article 5(1) and (2) TEU by using the state aid rules to unilaterally define the tax jurisdiction of the Belgian State.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and in its classification as an aid scheme that does not require any further implementing measures within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and Article 107 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and in its classification as an aid scheme that does not require any further implementing measures within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and Article 107 TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU in considering that the excess profit ruling system constitutes a state aid measure. The Commission has not evidenced the state resources involved, has not identified the existence of an advantage and has erroneously assessed selectivity and distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU in considering that the excess profit ruling system constitutes a state aid measure. The Commission has not evidenced the state resources involved, has not identified the existence of an advantage and has erroneously assessed selectivity and distortion of competition.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid not only as the Belgian entities subject to tax in Belgium but also the multinational groups to which they belong. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid not only as the Belgian entities subject to tax in Belgium but also the multinational groups to which they belong.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the general principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) as recovery may be requested from the multinational groups to which the Belgian entities that have received a ruling belong. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the general principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) as recovery may be requested from the multinational groups to which the Belgian entities that have received a ruling belong.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/37

---

Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)

(Case T-132/16)

(2016/C 191/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)

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 ‘VENMO’ — EU trade mark No 9 509 357

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2974/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceeding be borne by EUIPO and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceeding be borne by EUIPO and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/37

---

Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-140/16)

(2016/C 191/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (La Trinité-sur-Mer, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 29 January 2016, notified by letter No D 302191 of 5 February 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 320 026,23 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 29 January 2016, notified by letter No D 302191 of 5 February 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 320 026,23 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;

| — | annul the debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 informing the applicant that a debt had been found with respect to him by decision of the General Secretary of 29 January 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 informing the applicant that a debt had been found with respect to him by decision of the General Secretary of 29 January 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the external legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into two parts.






  — | First part, according to which it is the Bureau of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General which has competence with respect to financial decision affecting political parties and, therefore, the Members. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the external legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into two parts.

—

First part, according to which it is the Bureau of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General which has competence with respect to financial decision affecting political parties and, therefore, the Members.

| — | Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament could not modify the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary General fails to show that the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament delegated powers to him enabling him to adopt and notify the contested measures concerning the regulation of financial questions affecting a Member. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament could not modify the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary General fails to show that the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament delegated powers to him enabling him to adopt and notify the contested measures concerning the regulation of financial questions affecting a Member.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the internal legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into four parts.






  — | First part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the internal legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into four parts.

—

First part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

| — | Second part, according to which the Bureau of the Parliament failed to adduce any evidence justifying the contested measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, according to which the Bureau of the Parliament failed to adduce any evidence justifying the contested measures.

| — | Third part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by misuse of powers and of procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by misuse of powers and of procedure.

| — | Fourth part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/39

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM

(Case T-141/16)

(2016/C 191/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune)

Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010);

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, brought before the General Court pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeks delivery of a judgment ordering the defendant to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 75 208,47, together with interest, in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544 for the project entitled ‘Development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’.

The European Commission pleads, as the principal legal basis, breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations. It submits in particular that the sum which was paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract at issue was not used to carry out any work relating to the contract and that the defendant has not adduced any relevant documentary evidence. In the alternative, the European Commission puts forward a claim of unjust enrichment of the defendant, as provided for in Articles 904 and 908 of the Civil Code.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/39

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)

(Case T-143/16)

(2016/C 191/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intesia Group Holding GmbH (Böblingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INTESA’ — EU trade mark No 3 105 277

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 632/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the other parties to pay the costs of the present proceeding, as well as those of the EUIPO application for revocation and appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to pay the costs of the present proceeding, as well as those of the EUIPO application for revocation and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/40

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)

(Case T-144/16)

(2016/C 191/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multipharma SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 word mark ‘MULTIPHARMA’ — Application for registration No 9 537 887

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2016 in Case R 2950/2014-1

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

—

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

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/41

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission

(Case T-146/16)

(2016/C 191/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands), Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), It Fryske Gea (Opsterland, Netherlands), Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands), Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap (Dalfsen, Netherlands), Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands), Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands), Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands), Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands), Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Heinkenszand, Netherlands), Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (‘s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands), Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers en M. de Wit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on aid measure SA.27301 (2015/NN) — the Netherlands, reference C(2015) 5929 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on aid measure SA.27301 (2015/NN) — the Netherlands, reference C(2015) 5929 final;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity.

| — | The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations). |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations).

| — | The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached. |
| --- | --- |

—

The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached.

| — | The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition.

| — | The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/42

---

Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-147/16)

(2016/C 191/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato, G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission decision No C (2016) 366 final of 28 January 2016, notified on 29 January 2016, by which, in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 2011 in Case C-496/09, the Commission ordered the Italian Republic to make penalty payments in the sum of EUR 5 382 000 and EUR 2 106 000, relating to the third and fourth half-years following the delivery of that judgment, respectively; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission decision No C (2016) 366 final of 28 January 2016, notified on 29 January 2016, by which, in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 2011 in Case C-496/09, the Commission ordered the Italian Republic to make penalty payments in the sum of EUR 5 382 000 and EUR 2 106 000, relating to the third and fourth half-years following the delivery of that judgment, respectively;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, misapplication of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004, and infringement of the principle of proportionality as well.

| — | In that regard, the applicant claims that the contested decision requires interest to be applied at a compound rate to the sums owed by the undertakings in repayment of the State aid, as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 794/2004. The Italian Government contests that requirement arguing that, having regard also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, interest calculated in such a manner may not be applied in relation to recovery decisions notified before the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004 or, still less, in relation to decisions notified before the publication of the Commission’s Communication of 2003 on the interest rates to be applied for the recovery of unlawful state aid. On the contrary, relying, as the Commission does in the contested decision, upon an alleged agreement to the contrary, entered into by the Commission itself and the Italian authorities, is of no validity. |
| --- | --- |

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that the contested decision requires interest to be applied at a compound rate to the sums owed by the undertakings in repayment of the State aid, as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 794/2004. The Italian Government contests that requirement arguing that, having regard also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, interest calculated in such a manner may not be applied in relation to recovery decisions notified before the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004 or, still less, in relation to decisions notified before the publication of the Commission’s Communication of 2003 on the interest rates to be applied for the recovery of unlawful state aid. On the contrary, relying, as the Commission does in the contested decision, upon an alleged agreement to the contrary, entered into by the Commission itself and the Italian authorities, is of no validity.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/42

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission

(Case T-148/16 P)

(2016/C 191/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Adrian Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Sven-Ole Mogensen (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellants

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission;

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | annul the decisions contained in the pension receipts for the month of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the appellants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions contained in the pension receipts for the month of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the appellants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014,

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by interpreting the clear and precise provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) in the light of the alleged ‘real intention of the legislature’ as to the scope of the suspension of the update mechanism, in 2013 and 2014, of pensions and remuneration. In doing so, the CST made an interpretation contra legem of Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations and of its rules for implementing, set out in Annex XI of those Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by interpreting the clear and precise provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) in the light of the alleged ‘real intention of the legislature’ as to the scope of the suspension of the update mechanism, in 2013 and 2014, of pensions and remuneration. In doing so, the CST made an interpretation contra legem of Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations and of its rules for implementing, set out in Annex XI of those Staff Regulations.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law, in so far as the conditions as laid down in the Staff Regulations to carry out the intermediate update at issue, provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations, had not been met and that the Commission, by carrying out that update, had misused its powers. After finding, in the judgment under appeal, that the previous correction coefficient had been incorrectly calculated in Council Regulation (EU) No 1416/2013 of 17 December 2013 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2013 the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, the CST erred in law by holding that the principle of equal treatment authorised the appointing authority to carry out the intermediate update at issue, contrary to the doctrine of withdrawal of illegal administrative acts that give rise to a right or similar benefits. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law, in so far as the conditions as laid down in the Staff Regulations to carry out the intermediate update at issue, provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations, had not been met and that the Commission, by carrying out that update, had misused its powers. After finding, in the judgment under appeal, that the previous correction coefficient had been incorrectly calculated in Council Regulation (EU) No 1416/2013 of 17 December 2013 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2013 the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, the CST erred in law by holding that the principle of equal treatment authorised the appointing authority to carry out the intermediate update at issue, contrary to the doctrine of withdrawal of illegal administrative acts that give rise to a right or similar benefits.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/43

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by Ingrid Fedkte against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2015 in Case F-107/15, Fedkte v EESC

(Case T-157/16 P)

(2016/C 191/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ingrid Fedkte (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M.- A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the order of 5 February 2016 of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) in Case F-107/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the order of 5 February 2016 of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) in Case F-107/15;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the substance of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the substance of the action;

| — | make an appropriate order as to costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or an inadequate statement of reasons vitiating the contested order, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) held that, in paragraphs 19 to 21 and 25 of that order, both in the case of a request for review of a decision which has not been contested within the prescribed time-limit and in that of a request which indirectly calls into question such a decision, for a fact relied on in support of the request to be considered as ‘new’, it is a requirement that neither the appellant nor the administration was, or could have been, aware of it at the time of the adoption of the decision which has become final, and the CST has applied that principle in paragraphs 27 to 32 of the order, although according to settled case-law the lack of awareness of the fact relied on is not required for requests for review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or an inadequate statement of reasons vitiating the contested order, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) held that, in paragraphs 19 to 21 and 25 of that order, both in the case of a request for review of a decision which has not been contested within the prescribed time-limit and in that of a request which indirectly calls into question such a decision, for a fact relied on in support of the request to be considered as ‘new’, it is a requirement that neither the appellant nor the administration was, or could have been, aware of it at the time of the adoption of the decision which has become final, and the CST has applied that principle in paragraphs 27 to 32 of the order, although according to settled case-law the lack of awareness of the fact relied on is not required for requests for review.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or distortion of the material in the file and inadequate reasoning that vitiated the contested order, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 32 of that order, on the grounds that no new and substantial fact substantiated the request for review, the pre-litigation procedure had not followed the normal course and the claims made against the decision of 30 September 2014 and the dismissal of the complaint of 22 April 2015 were inadmissible; whereas the purely confirmatory nature of those decisions presupposed not only that there had been no prior review but also that the decisions contained no new element, and that, as the applicant had claimed, the decision of 30 September 2014 included a new element compared to that of 7 April 2014, just as the decision of 22 April 2015 did compared to that of 30 September 2014. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or distortion of the material in the file and inadequate reasoning that vitiated the contested order, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 32 of that order, on the grounds that no new and substantial fact substantiated the request for review, the pre-litigation procedure had not followed the normal course and the claims made against the decision of 30 September 2014 and the dismissal of the complaint of 22 April 2015 were inadmissible; whereas the purely confirmatory nature of those decisions presupposed not only that there had been no prior review but also that the decisions contained no new element, and that, as the applicant had claimed, the decision of 30 September 2014 included a new element compared to that of 7 April 2014, just as the decision of 22 April 2015 did compared to that of 30 September 2014.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or distortion of the material in the file and failure to answer the appellant’s line of argument that vitiated the contested order, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 26 of that order, the ‘new’ nature of the fact relied on in support of the request for review presupposed that the parties were not, or could not have been, aware of it, and that the appellant had not mentioned in her request the new and substantial facts that were capable of substantiating the submission of the request, but invoked, by reference to her head of unit’s note, the amendment of the Staff Regulations; although lack of awareness of the fact relied on was not necessary in the present case, the appellant had, as she had claimed, indicated in her request for review itself the broadening of the legal basis and, by reference to her head of unit’s note, that the administration had not paid sufficient attention to the wording of the new Staff Regulations, which amounted to new and substantial elements. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or distortion of the material in the file and failure to answer the appellant’s line of argument that vitiated the contested order, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 26 of that order, the ‘new’ nature of the fact relied on in support of the request for review presupposed that the parties were not, or could not have been, aware of it, and that the appellant had not mentioned in her request the new and substantial facts that were capable of substantiating the submission of the request, but invoked, by reference to her head of unit’s note, the amendment of the Staff Regulations; although lack of awareness of the fact relied on was not necessary in the present case, the appellant had, as she had claimed, indicated in her request for review itself the broadening of the legal basis and, by reference to her head of unit’s note, that the administration had not paid sufficient attention to the wording of the new Staff Regulations, which amounted to new and substantial elements.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of evidence and of the principle of objectivity, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 28 of the contested order, the appellant had not given any indication regarding the date on which the administration had, or could have, become aware of the future departure on maternity and parental leave of her colleague and, in paragraph 29 of that order, that it was not inconceivable that this could have been the case on 7 April 2014, taking into account the duration of leave of that kind as set out in the Staff Regulations, the predictability long in advance of the date of birth and the custom of informing the department of a long-term absence as soon as possible, inferring from it in paragraph 30 to 32 of the order that the appellant had not demonstrated that she herself nor the administration were not, or could not have been, aware of the future absence of her colleague on 7 April 2014, that her request for re-examination was not substantiated by any new and substantial fact and her claims were inadmissible; whereas evidence of a negative fact and on the part of a third party was impossible to adduce, it was for the EESC to state the date of the request for leave, and the CST could not act on the basis of successive presumptions, nor on a mere assumption in order to reverse the burden of proof and substantiate its findings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of evidence and of the principle of objectivity, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 28 of the contested order, the appellant had not given any indication regarding the date on which the administration had, or could have, become aware of the future departure on maternity and parental leave of her colleague and, in paragraph 29 of that order, that it was not inconceivable that this could have been the case on 7 April 2014, taking into account the duration of leave of that kind as set out in the Staff Regulations, the predictability long in advance of the date of birth and the custom of informing the department of a long-term absence as soon as possible, inferring from it in paragraph 30 to 32 of the order that the appellant had not demonstrated that she herself nor the administration were not, or could not have been, aware of the future absence of her colleague on 7 April 2014, that her request for re-examination was not substantiated by any new and substantial fact and her claims were inadmissible; whereas evidence of a negative fact and on the part of a third party was impossible to adduce, it was for the EESC to state the date of the request for leave, and the CST could not act on the basis of successive presumptions, nor on a mere assumption in order to reverse the burden of proof and substantiate its findings.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/44

---

Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC

(Case T-158/16 P)

(2016/C 191/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Suzanne Ditlevsen (Copenhagen, Denmark), Annie Madsen (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC;

giving judgment itself,

| — | annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014;

| — | order the EESC to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-148/16 P, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/45

---

Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

(Case T-833/14) (1)

(2016/C 191/59)

Language of the case: Danish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/45

---

Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Forbruger-Kontakt v Commission

(Case T-834/14) (1)

(2016/C 191/60)

Language of the case: Danish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/45

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council

(Case T-24/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/61)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/45

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading v Council

(Case T-285/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/62)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/46

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council

(Case T-524/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/63)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/46

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

(Case T-525/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/64)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/46

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — HK Intertrade v Council

(Case T-526/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/65)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/46

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY)

(Case T-571/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/66)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Rouffaud v EEAS

(Case F-59/13 RENV) (1)

((Civil Service - Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment - EEAS staff - Member of the contract staff - Auxiliary member of the contract staff - Reclassification of auxiliary contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Refusal))

(2016/C 191/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have his successive fixed-term employment contracts reclassified as a contract of indefinite duration and to have his period completed as an auxiliary member of the contract staff recognised as a period of service completed as a member of the contract staff.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in Cases F-59/13 and F-59/13 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in Cases F-59/13 and F-59/13 RENV;

| 3. | Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs incurred in Case T-457/14 P and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Thierry Rouffard in Case T-457/14 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs incurred in Case T-457/14 P and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Thierry Rouffard in Case T-457/14 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013, p. 14 (original Case F-59/13).

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL

(Case F-41/15 DISS II) (1)

((Civil service - CEPOL staff - Temporary staff - Contract staff - Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL - Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) - Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff - Contractual consequences - Need for consent from members of staff - Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment - Legitimate expectations - Principle of sound administration))

(2016/C 191/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FN, FP and FQ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police College (represented by: F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the European Police College (CEPOL) which resulted in either the applicants resigning from their positions at the agency or the applicants relocating from London to Budapest and thereby suffering financial loss, and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FN, FP and FQ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police College. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FN, FP and FQ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police College.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 01/06/2015, p. 28.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission

(Case F-49/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary Board - Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission - Change in place of employment - Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels - Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country - OLAF enquiry - Disciplinary penalty - Classification in a lower function group without downgrading - Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to comply with the adversarial principle - New fact - Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure - Proportionality of the penalty - Procedural time limit))

(2016/C 191/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FU (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, and subsequently by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant in the form of reclassification in grade AST 5, whereas the applicant had been appointed to grade AD 5, for making statements, deemed to be false, in order to receive the resettlement allowance and removal expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FU to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FU to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 36.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Zink v Commission

(Case F-77/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Administrative error meaning that no expatriation allowance was paid for a number of years - Adversely affecting act - Salary statements not reflecting a decision - Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure - Absolute bar to proceedings - Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure - Application within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable time))

(2016/C 191/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Richard Zink (Bamako, Mali) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision to limit the retroactive payment of the expatriation allowance to a period of five years from the date on which the failure to pay that allowance was discovered and an order against the defendant to pay default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Richard Zink to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Richard Zink to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 51.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS

(Case F-94/15) (1)

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Staff Committee - Election of the Staff Committee members - Validity - Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - EEAS electoral regulations - First ballot - Quorum not attained - Extension of the polling period - Supplementary extension of the polling period - Failure to organise a second ballot - Unlawfulness))

(2016/C 191/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oren Wolff (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T.Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: initially M. Silva and S. Marquardt, Agents, then G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, and lastly G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s challenge brought against the result of the elections to the EEAS Staff Committee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 23 April 2015 by which the European External Action Service rejected Oren Wolff’s request seeking that the result of the elections of the members of the Staff Committee be deemed invalid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 23 April 2015 by which the European External Action Service rejected Oren Wolff’s request seeking that the result of the elections of the members of the Staff Committee be deemed invalid;

| 2. | Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wolff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wolff.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 07/09/2015, p. 83.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/50

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — CP v Parliament

(Case F-98/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Head of unit - Trial period - Not confirmed in the post of Head of unit - Enforcement of a judgment for annulment - Loss of opportunity))

(2016/C 191/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CP (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and O. Caisou-Rousseau, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 18 July 2014, which, following the judgment of the Tribunal in Case F-8/13, CP v European Parliament, of 26 March 2014, confirmed the applicant in his post as Head of unit, in so far as that decision does not provide for retroactive recognition of the status of Head of unit and the retroactive award of the increase in basic salary for his post (the management allowance), and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Parliament to pay CP the sum of EUR 3 219,55. Default interest calculated at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable to the material period, increased by two points, to run from 1 July 2011 until the date of actual payment, shall be added to that sum; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Parliament to pay CP the sum of EUR 3 219,55. Default interest calculated at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable to the material period, increased by two points, to run from 1 July 2011 until the date of actual payment, shall be added to that sum;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

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

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015, p. 86.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/51

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — Beiner v Commission

(Case F-135/15) (1)

((Civil service - Competition - Eligibility conditions - Professional experience - Selection board’s decision not to allow the applicant to sit the competition - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 191/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurent Beiner (Knutange, France) (represented by: B. Sahki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AST/130/14 not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage, on the ground that he did not have the required level of studies and professional experience of a minimum of six years related to the nature of the work.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Laurent Beiner shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Laurent Beiner shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11/01/2016, p. 37.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/51

---

Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ v European Ombudsman

(Case F-10/16)

(2016/C 191/74)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Vasileios A. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Ombudsman

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Ombudsman not to appoint the applicant to the post of Secretary-General of the Ombudsman’s office and an order that the defendant pay damages in respect of the material and non-pecuniary losses allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision of 9 November 2015 of the European Ombudsman, by which it rejected the applicant’s administrative claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of 9 November 2015 of the European Ombudsman, by which it rejected the applicant’s administrative claims;

| — | Annul the decision of 10 April 2015, which denied the applicant an interview, and the decision of 16 July 2015 appointing B.G. to the post of Secretary-General of the Ombudsman’s office; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 10 April 2015, which denied the applicant an interview, and the decision of 16 July 2015 appointing B.G. to the post of Secretary-General of the Ombudsman’s office;

| — | Order the European Ombudsman to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 112 472,64 as compensation for the material loss suffered by him; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Ombudsman to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 112 472,64 as compensation for the material loss suffered by him;

| — | Order the European Ombudsman to pay the applicant the sum of thirty thousand euros (EUR 30 000) as compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered by him; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Ombudsman to pay the applicant the sum of thirty thousand euros (EUR 30 000) as compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered by him;

| — | Order the European Ombudsman to pay all the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Ombudsman to pay all the applicant’s costs.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/52

---

Action brought on 15 March 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-15/16)

(2016/C 191/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant permission to publish an article, in the absence of modification of the proposed text.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/52

---

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — ZZ v EUIPO

(Case F-16/16)

(2016/C 191/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 24/07/2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the defendant’s 2015 promotion procedure by not including the name of the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise issued 24/07/2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 24/07/2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the defendant’s 2015 promotion procedure by not including the name of the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise issued 24/07/2015;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the procedural costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the procedural costs.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/53

---

Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-17/16)

(2016/C 191/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have regard to the late request for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 and for annulment of the implied decision not to grant that request for review.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 17 August 2015, received by the applicant by e-mail, not to have regard to the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 following the decision of the selection board in that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 17 August 2015, received by the applicant by e-mail, not to have regard to the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 following the decision of the selection board in that competition;

| — | annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 not to grant the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — 3 not to grant the applicant’s request of 13 August 2015 for review of the decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/12) (1)

(2016/C 191/78)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5/5/2012, p. 31.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/54

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 April 2016 — Chevalier v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-99/12) (1)

(2016/C 191/79)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10/11/2012, p. 24.

---

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/54

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission

(Case F-72/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/80)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 55.

---